Former Clinton WH Counsel Lanny Davis Struggles To List Hillary’s Achievements At State Dept

Audio: Lanny Davis Struggles to come up with any Hillary Clinton Accomplishment at State Department.

AskMarion:

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Former Clinton White House Counsel and spin doctor Lanny Davis had a hard time listing Hillary’s achievement while Secretary of State:

HH: If I ever get in serious, serious trouble, I think I’m going to try and find Lanny Davis. Now only is he a friend of my friend, Michael Medved, and a friend of my friend, Mark Gearan. He is widely regarded as one of the great spin masters of Washington, D.C. He has brand new book out called Crisis Tales: Five Rules For Coping With Crises In Business, Politics And Life. Lanny Davis, welcome back to the Hugh Hewitt Show, great to talk to you.

LD: I love being on your show, Hugh. And I hope you never need my services, but thank you.

HH: Well, there are a couple of things in here. First of all, selling the planes to Pakistan when you came up with the nine words, the money or the planes, what’s fair is fair, that’s a beautiful chapter, but I still don’t want to sell planes to Pakistan. I mean, that was, I kept saying Lanny, you’re selling me. I don’t want them. It’s not fair. They’re running the Taliban, so what’s fair? Did that work?

LD: Well, first of all, this is way back when, so you’re dating me, and I have to date myself. So this is when Benazir Bhutto was the small d democrat, and elected by a popular landslide and ran a small d democracy with secular Islamic views. That was the ideal Islamic democracy in the world, Turkey being at the time another example. So this is when Pakistan was truly our friend and Benazir Bhutto was an inspirational leader. And we owed Pakistan, literally owed Pakistan $600 million dollars. We had their money, we had their planes, and they wanted one or the other back, and we were stuck and couldn’t give either one back. And that’s when I helped Prime Minister Bhutto with President Clinton.

HH: It’s a fascinating story. We didn’t know at the time that the ISI was helping the Taliban become our nightmare, so your hands are clean on that. But it’s a fascinating story. I also loved your mix up with Garry Trudeau, your fellow Yalie, over the misapplication of facts with regards to the Ivory Coast incident, covered in great detail. But I love your takeaway. Don’t represent yourself.

LD: My punch line is that Garry Trudeau had very good company in ignoring the facts that ultimately came out, which is that I was helping the State Department and the President of the United States get this thug out of the trenches in the Ivory Coast, and save lives. But I couldn’t tell everybody what I was doing, because it was covert. So I violated my transparency rule. I paid the penalty and I had a fool for a client, namely me.

HH: Well, Crisis Tales is full of good stuff, and I recommend it to anyone. But now I want your crisis advice for an old client of yours. Former Secretary of State Clinton brought up Benghazi sua sponte yesterday. That means on her own, for the benefit of the Steelers fans. And it raised more questions than it answered. When does she need to sit down and give us the specifics of what she was doing that night, where she went, and why she never called back Mr. Hicks?

LD: Well, first of all, I’m not sure Mr. Hicks ever called her. That’s not a fact. It’s actually not true that he ever called her. And secondly, she’s done that. She’s testified in front of two Congressional committees, and I’m sure she’d be willing to do it again and again and again, because the most decisive comment she made is when she was accused of a systemic failure in her own department by a panel that she appointed. Ambassador Pickering, a Republican administration senior official at the State Department and ambassador for a Republican president, Bush I, and Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, neither one of them exactly partisans, investigated what happened in Benghazi, and found that the State Department had a systemic failure of leadership at the mid-levels, that communications did not occur very well, and she accepted personal responsibility in all 64 recommendations for change. So…

HH: But Lanny, neither the Ambassador nor the Admiral spoke to her personally under oath, and she did in fact talk with Mr. Hicks. That’s under oath and testified to. She talked to him at 2am in the morning on a conference call, and she never called him back. I’m curious if you would recommend to her that she sit down for a one hour with Jake Tapper, or with Bret Baier, or with a serious journalist, not Andrea Mitchell, not someone who will lie down and sweep the ground before she walks on it, but a serious, probing question about why she ran away, because she ran away that night.

LD: Well, I don’t believe she ran away, but we shouldn’t debate things we are both uncertain of. Let’s both agree that this is an issue she has to address, will address. My philosophy is the more information out, the better for her. And at some point, I certainly agree with you she’ll have to retell the story. I think we have a difference of opinion whether she already has, but I certainly agree with your premise that as long as these questions are nagging, the ultimate solution, as I always say in my book, is tell it all, tell it early, tell it yourself. She’s very, very sorry about the loss of her friend. She’s taken responsibility, and I think she ultimately will follow even your advice, Hugh.

HH: Well, I like your advice. Tell it all, tell it early, tell it yourself. She has not told it all. She hasn’t told it early. What she has said, she’s used other people to do so. But what about, who would you recommend she sit down with for like a Chris Christie longest day press conference? He did two hours. Should she do the same sort of thing, Lanny Davis?

LD: Well, first of all, we’re just going to have to disagree in respect to have differences of opinion with being as to whether she already has answered all the questions. But I think she ultimately will have to do it again if she decides to run for president, and I have no idea who she should sit down with. I kind of laughed in the middle of your mentioning Andrea Mitchell, because the last time I saw Andrea Mitchell, she was extremely tough on the Clinton White House. But she’s got to sit down with a credible journalist and answer all questions if she wants to run for president. Not just Benghazi, but your life is transparent. It’s pretty tough out there as Chris Christie has discovered. I’m not satisfied with Chris Christie’s explanation. He could have spent four more hours, and he still hasn’t answered the basic question why did you sit and watch that traffic jam and didn’t pick up the phone and call your buddy at the Port Authority and say what the heck is going on here?

HH: And that, by the way, America, that was…

LD: He’s never answered that question.

HH: That was a perfect bit of Lanny Davis diversion. That was eloquent, actually. He knows I’m burrowing in on Hillary, and so he brings up Chris Christie and thinks it’s like shouting squirrel. But Lanny, I’ve got to go back. Jake Tapper said ten minutes ago we don’t know what she did that night. Nobody knows what she did after the 2am call with Hicks. Don’t we need a timeline? Don’t we deserve to know what the woman in charge of the State Department under siege actually did, because I think she ran away, and she has never answered with specificity and particularity what she did that night.

LD: So it looks like you just changed the topic from my Chris Christie point, but the answer is I’ve already given, I already gave you the answer, Hugh. So I don’t know if I can…

HH: All right. Let me ask…

LD: …more time, which is at some point, at some point, if she runs for president, Benghazi and every other issue she’s being criticized for, and I happen to believe that there are only a handful of people that hold Benghazi against her. I don’t think that that’s a serious political issue for her.

HH: Okay, then give me one more thing.

LD: But she’s got to do it. She’s got to do it if she runs for president. And she knows that.

HH: All right, one question, you’ve got a minute. Summarize for me what she accomplished as Secretary of State.

LD: Well, the biggest thing of all is goodwill around the world, which is what secretaries of State do.

HH: Like in Syria…

LD: I don’t know what any secretary of State…

HH: …and Egypt and Libya?

LD: I don’t know, well, Libya and certainly the intervention in Libya and getting rid of Qaddafi, you would say that’s a pretty good achievement for the President. But these are presidential achievements with a partnership of the secretary of State. What do secretaries of State do? For example, she was very instrumental in the details of the Iranian sanctions program, which has produced, apparently, some results. I’m very skeptical about this deal in Iran on the nuclear weaponry. But the credit she deserves on this sanctions program, which literally was her program in the State Department to enforce, but in partnership with Barack Obama.

HH: So her achievement is that…

LD: But this doesn’t change the question about the secretary of State having achievement. This is a secretary of State is the most popular woman in the world and restored relations with everyone in the world.

HH: All right, Lanny, we’re out of time, but your achievement is one that’s been swept away by the President.

End of interview.

Technorati Tags: Hillary,Lanny Davis,Hugh Hewitt,Secretary of State,Hillary Clinton,Truth,Benghazi,Scandals,Election 2016

Hillary Clinton Aide Tells Reporter To “F _ck Off” And “Have A Good Life”

BuzzFeed Politics:

As the State Department's story about what happened in Benghazi crumbles, Clinton's personal spokesperson, Philippe Reines, loses his temper. “Have a good day. And by good day I mean Fuck Off.”

Clinton and Reines in China in 2010. Source: farm5.staticflickr.com

Posted Sep 24, 2012 1:11pm EDT

On Sunday morning, BuzzFeed correspondent Michael Hastings emailed Philippe Reines, Hillary Clinton's longtime aide and personal spokesman at the State Department, asking a series of pointed questions about State's handling of the Benghazi fiasco, and Reines' over-the-top attack on CNN. The emails quickly got personal, with Reines calling Hastings an "unmitigated asshole" before an exchange of harsh words on both sides.

The email chain concluded with Reines writing that Hastings should "Fuck Off" and "Have a good life."

The full exchange (with one typo fixed) is below.

From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 10:32 AM
To: Reines, Philippe I
Subject: Request for comment

Hey Philippe:

A few quick questions for you. Why didn't the State Department search the consulate and find AMB Steven's diary first? What other potential valuable intelligence was left behind that could have been picked up by apparently anyone searching the grounds? Was any classified or top secret material also left? Do you still feel that there was adequate security at the compound, considering it was not only overrun but sensitive personal effects and possibly other intelligence remained out for anyone passing through to pick up? Your statement on CNN sounded pretty defensive--do you think it's the media's responsibility to help secure State Department assets overseas after they've been attacked?

Let me know if you have a second.Michael

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

Good morning Michael

I'm adding my colleague Toria Nuland who I believe you know. She has addressed much of your questions below during her daily press briefings, so I'll let her weigh in to remind you of what's already been thoroughly answered. As far as the tone of my email, I think you're misreading mine as much as I'm misreading yours as being needlessly antagonistic.

But on your questions pertaining to CNN's handling of the diary:

• You know that all USG personnel were evacuated from Benghazi after the attack. So I'm not sure why you're asking why State didn't find the diary first.

• On material, I'll let Toria reiterate, but the answer is no. Though you might want to ask CNN if they took anything else from the crime scene that they haven't yet told anyone about.

• In terms of the media's responsibility, I'll start with the outlandish statement that I believe the media does have responsibilities. Your question seems to imply they have none and any expectation of responsible behavior is too much to ask. To be specific:I believe CNN had the responsibility to act as human beings and be sensitive to their loss when they first approached the family.

I believe CNN had a responsibility to not make promises to the family it would not keep.

If that's too much to ask, I believe CNN had at the very least a responsibility to make their intentions on the use of Chris's diary clear to the family from the outset.

I believe CNN had a responsibility to not deceive its own viewers for more than 48 hours on the source of their reporting, using convoluted attribution they themselves had to clarify, before admitting it was the diary they were relying on.

I believe that when they finally did admit to using Chris's diary, they had a responsibility to their viewers and to the family to explain why they broke their pledge.

I believe that many within CNN agree with everything I'm saying.

More than anything else, I believe that CNN - since they had already read every word of the diary before calling the family on Friday the 14th, the day Chris's remains were returned home - had all the information they needed at that point to make an editorial decision on whether the contents of the diary compelled them to report on it. I believe the time to invoke their standards to justify using the diary came six days late. I believe that CNN, if they felt strongly that they had an obligation to use the diary should never have presented the family with a choice in the first place that they'd later disregard.

I don't believe that CNN should get credit for issuing a flimsy confession only when caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I believe the statement CNN issued late last night, 24 hours after Anderson Cooper's ill-conceived statement on air, basically says they agreed not to use it until they didn't feel like it anymore, and only admitted to it when they were about to be caught. I don't believe that's much of a profile in courage.

Lastly, I believe that you of all people, after famously being accused of violating agreed upon ground rules and questionable sourcing, would agree that it's important for a news organization to maintain its own integrity if it is to be trusted. That begins with keeping its word. If you can't manage that, then don't give it.

I realize that the way this works is that you only you get to ask me questions, but I have one for you: if you were in Benghazi, went to the scene of the attack, found the ambassador's diary, read every word of it, would you have called them and asked their permission to use it, then when you weren't granted that permission agree that you wouldn't use it in any way, and then a few days later just change your mind?

If the answer is yes, then you obviously agree that CNN handled this perfectly fine.

If the answer is no, if you would have decided its contents demanded reporting immediately, how would you have handled this differently then CNN?

And you should feel free to use every word above, in its entirety. Though I suspect you won't.

Philippe

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:04 PM
To: Reines, Philippe I Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Request for comment

Philippe:

Thanks for getting back to me. No, you read my email correctly--I found your statement to CNN offensive.

From my perspective, the scandal here is that the State Department had such inadequate security procedures in place that four Americans were killed. And then the Ambassador's diary--and who knows what else--was left behind for anyone to pick up. Thankfully, it was CNN--and not Al Qaeda or some other militia--that found it and was able to return it to the family. That CNN used portions of the material in the diary they found at the scene--material that appears to contradict the official version of events that State/WH has been putting out--is completely in line with practices of good journalism.

I don't know how involved Arwa Damon has been in this. But for what it's worth, Arwa is one of the best war correspondents working today. She's consistently risked her life to get these stories, and to find out what actually happens in these conflict zones.I do agree that the media has lots of responsibilities, and CNN fulfilled its responsibility by returning the diary while still managing to inform the American public of newsworthy information. So it's unfortunate that you are trying to make a scapegoat out of CNN. That State was forced to flee Benghazi--again, because of such inadequate security, leaving behind all sorts of sensitive information--tells us more about DoS than CNN.

The misinformation here seems largely to be coming from State and the administration. The defense that the administration has offered that there was no intelligence warning of an attack is weak. If there was no intel, then clearly the CIA and other intel agents stationed in Benghazi weren't doing their jobs well. If there was intel, then we have some kind of cover-up--whether out of incompetence or ass covering before the election or just the trauma of losing four good men, it's hard for me to say at this point.

All the best,

Michael

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

Why do you bother to ask questions you've already decided you know the answers to?

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 12:50 PM
To: Reines, Philippe I Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Request for comment

Why don't you give answers that aren't bullshit for a change?

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:
I now understand why the official investigation by the Department of the Defense as reported by The Army Times The Washington Post concluded beyond a doubt that you're an unmitigated asshole.

How's that for a non-bullshit response?

Now that we've gotten that out of our systems, have a good day.

And by good day, I mean Fuck Off

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 01:40 PM
To: Reines, Philippe I Cc: Nuland, Victoria J
Subject: Re: Request for comment

Hah--I now understand what women say about you, too! Any new complaints against you lately?

______________________________________
On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Reines, Philippe I wrote:

Talk about bullshit - answer me this: Do you only traffic in lies, or are you on the ground floor of creating them?

And since Fuck Off wasn't clear enough, I'm done with you. Inside of 5 minutes when I can log into my desktop, you'll be designated as Junk Mail.

Have a good life Michael.

______________________________________
From: Michael Hastings
Date: Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Subject: Re: Request for comment
To: "Reines, Philippe I" Cc: "Nuland, Victoria J"

I'll take that as a non-denial denial.

All the best,

Michael

Technorati Tags: Hillary,Hillary Clinton,Benghazi,State Department,reporters,media,Hillary Aide,Hillary Clinton Aide,watch the other hand,Philippe Reines

Related:

Video: Hillary Clinton Says Burmese Politicians Learned Democracy From "The West Wing"

Libya Threatens Clinton's Legacy — And State Does Damage Control

Colonel: Hillary Made Decision Not to Post Marines at Benghazi

Hillary Clinton, the Law of Karma, and Shattered Dreams

All Starting to Unravel for Obama… and Hillary

No Marines for Libyan Ambassador, Full Security Detail for Valerie Jarrett Vacation

REPORT: Obama administration was warned about attacks, did nothing

Body of lies from Benghazi to Barack — Comprehensive investigative report

Video: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama are so busy apologizing because they agreed to UN Resolution 16/18

Winston Churchill once said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last…

U.S. Embassy Attacked: CNN Breaking News @ 14:06 EDST on 9/11, From Egypt… Then Libya, No Comments From Obama – Updated

Manifesto Puts Hillary’s Deputy Chief In Middle Of Muslim Plot – Please Read more:

 Final UN Arms Trade Treaty Disarms America With Clinton’s Signature  -  Waiting For The ‘Hammer To Fall’ – U.N. Small Arms Treaty Passes During Second Session…  But remember… CFR Says Don’t Worry About Hillary’s Small Arms Treaty

Alert: Hillary Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff Tied to Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda

Breaking Hillaryland News: New Evidence Shows Hillary a Mastermind Behind Gunwalker as Her Welcome in Egypt Not So Good

Obama, Clinton Selling Out U.S. Sovereignty In Secret

And Just when you think it can’t get much worse:

Monica Lewinsky Is Back - Gets Bill and Hillary Clinton into Big Trouble Again

Yet Obama Sends These Two Clowns to Represent Him and Us at the UN with the Leaders of the World Including Those from the Middle East… Really? Feeling Safe??

EU Times:

World-famous mistress of former U.S. President Bill Clinton’s Monica Lewinsky decided to make some more money on her controversial past. Lewinsky will write memoires. The former White House trainee negotiates the details of her book with major publishers.

Reportedly, the forgotten sex scandal star has already requested $12 million for her confessions, including those about her relationship with Clinton. Many believe that her story is not worth the money. However, Lewinsky has not signed the deal, although several publishers are interested in the publication of the book.

Meanwhile, American journalists try to show as much humor as they can in their comments about the Lewinsky confessions, BFM.Ru reports. TJ Walker, a famous columnist with Forbes and The Wall Street Journal tried to guess what the new book was going to be about: “What is it? A time capsule? What time is it? 1998? It’s been 14 years since we had to look at this woman day after day. She got her millions from that. She had her Barbara Walters sit-down. And now she is going to write another book. What in the world is she going to say in it? Is it – “nobody has given a damn about me for 14 years?” Second chapter: “I am an idiot. I’ve never done anything interesting in my entire life other than fooling around with the president.” Chapter Three: “I’ve done a handbag campaign and a bunch of other things, but they all were a failure because everyone thought of me as that one thing.”

Monica has not confirmed her plans about the memories yet, but her friends told reporters what her new book could be about. According to one of them, she can share what she knows about Bill’s insatiable desires for threesomes, orgies and sex toys of all kinds, RBC says.

The president’s ex-lover recalled how he spoke disparagingly of his wife, calling her a “cold fish” and making fun of her “non-existent sex life.” Bill Clinton also suggested that Hillary had also cheated on him.

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton knows about Lewinsky’s plans and is furious about it, Express Gazeta wrote. If the book is ever published, the sitting secretary of state will hardly ever become president.

Of course the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency is all but gone now, anyway, now that Americans realize that it was Hillary who made the decision not to send Marines to our Consulate in Benghazi Libya that resulted in the murder and torture of our Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 additional Americans, added to by 9-days of lies by Hillary herself, the State Department and the White House about the cause of the events in Egypt, the terror attack on American soil (our Consulate) in Libya and throughout the Middle East and much of the world.

Related:

Bill, Ted, Antonio, Joe, Debbie and Friends Take Us All to an Alternative Universe….

Technorati Tags: the Clintons,CNN,Hillary,Hillary Clinton,Benghazi,State Department,reporters,media,Monica Lewinsky,watch the other hand,Bill Clinton,Democrat Party,destroying America,Alinskyites,circus diplomacy,rights of the child,UN small arms treaty,Huma Abedin Weiner,Michael Hastings. The Clintons,Libya

Who The Hell Do These People Think They Are?

Imagine you wake up tomorrow and this is not a Constitutional Republic anymore. It is now a dictatorship. Whoops! Already accomplished. Then imagine that you wake up tomorrow and the President and our elites have given away part of the US. Then imagine it was your state and your state and Senators weren’t even consulted on it. In fact the deal was conducted in secret. Well, the nightmare is alive and well and being finalized for Alaska. But, before you go cursing ONLY Obama (as I do every damn chance I get), you better have a really hard look at Progressives on both sides of the aisle. This monstrous act of treason started under Bush Senior in 1990 and was ratified by our Senate in 1991. The only thing holding it back was that Russia had not signed the treaty. Obama is now looking to finish the diabolical deal.

From Drink Your Kool Aid:

On June 1, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a secret executive agreement with Eduard Shevardnadze, the former U.S.S.R. foreign minister. It specified that even though the treaty had not been ratified, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. agreed to abide by the terms of the treaty beginning June 15, 1990. The Senate ratified the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Treaty in 1991, which was then signed by President George Bush.

I can hear you saying that this is only about some tiny little islands and that they are closer to Russia than the US – why should we care? These islands are not tiny. And the true issue here is that they have a wealth of oil and resources on and around them. That’s the big deal. Plus, they’re ours – not Russia’s.

Why now, when this treaty has languished for 22 years? Well… Why not? It accomplishes a number of things for Obama. It takes a slap at the conservative state of Alaska and attempts to put her high-profile residents such as Sarah Palin and Joe Miller in their collective places. It caves to one of our biggest enemies, Russia, and weakens the US even more in their eyes. It gives precious energy resources away for nothing, thereby ensuring that energy prices will skyrocket even more in the US when that energy is needed. And who knows what other nefarious goals the deed accomplishes. Progressives are always figuring an angle and it never benefits US citizens – just the elite and powerful.

From WND:

Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

More:

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

In May of 1881, US explorers spotted the Jeannette and Henrietta Islands and claimed them for the United States. According to numerous sources, including the group State Department Watch, seven Arctic islands currently controlled by Russia are claimed by the United States. However, according to the United States Department of State, no such claim exists. The USSR/USA Maritime Boundary Treaty, which has yet to be approved by the Russian Duma, does not address the status of these islands nor the maritime boundaries associated with them. And of course, the Russians are claiming them for their own. The fight over Alaskan land has been going on since the 1800s and the Russians are claiming and taking any land anywhere they can find it that has oil or gas.

The Obama Administration is reportedly giving away Wrangell, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta islands in Alaska to Russia. They are getting ready to finalize the deal. The federal government drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side with no input from Alaska, her leaders or her residents. How is that Constitutional? And don’t cite the Treaty Clause to me. This oversteps the bounds of that section by a wide margin. Thus the need for secrecy and no transparency on the deal. The founding fathers never envisioned a sitting President and the State Department just giving away American sovereign land.

And as far as a milquetoast, spineless Senate is concerned – every one of them that ratified this in 1991 that is still in office should be shown the door that leads to a rail out of town with a spiffy new coat of tar and feathers. This treaty makes an excellent argument for abolishing the 17th Amendment and returning to the true Constitutional principle in which senators were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote. This is what you get when you bastardize and supersede Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

Who the hell do these people think they are? I’ll tell you… They truly believe they are the elite and that they are above your station – you are the riffraff, the serfs that only exist to serve them. They are royalty and their moniker is Progressive. They are the ruling class and the truly, obscenely wealthy and powerful. For too long we have let them rule as they see fit rather than by the will of the people. Obama is just the culmination of decades of inattention to the evil infiltrating our government’s halls. Time to send them all packing.

The powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people.

James Madison – The Federalist

That’s who they think they are; your King, your Lords, your Nobility. They don’t care what happened in 1787, they still think they own you.

By Terresa Monroe Hamilton  -  The NoisyRoom

Hillary Clinton Blasts Cheney As Not ‘Reliable’

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slammed former Vice President Dick Cheney in testimony before Congress (today) Wednesday 4/22, saying she did not consider him a “reliable” source of information.

Clinton’s jab came during testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Cheney says the Obama administration declassified only portions of Justice Department memos that invited criticism of the coercive interrogation measures used by the CIA. Other memos, he says, show the interrogations elicited vital intelligence that protected Americans, and urged Obama to release those documents as well.

The pointed exchange began as Rep. Dana Rohrbacher, R-Calif., asked Clinton whether she would support releasing the memos Cheney described.

"Well, it won't surprise you, I don't consider him a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton replied, referring to Cheney.

That response spurred Rohrbacher to redouble his efforts to get a straight answer, saying he was not asking for Clinton’s opinion of Dick Cheney.

"Madam secretary, I asked you a specific question," Rohrbacher reiterated.

Clinton’s response: "Congressman, I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it is in the best interest of our country, and that is what the president believes, and that is why he has taken the actions he did."

Secretary Clinton never answered to Rohrbacher’s question…

By: David A. Patten

Source:   Newsmax

Clip Reads:  Hillary Zings Cheney

At a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee, Hillary Clinton offers a

 few choice words about Dick Cheney. In reality, Hillary shows her true 

colors and obviously those of the White House.