Connect with us

News

DETAILS: Hillary Can’t Stop Thinking About 2020, & Rumors Are Beginning to Gain Steam

Once, twice, three times…a failure?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Former First Lady Hillary Clinton has not yet endorsed a 2020 presidential candidate. It’s still early in the process, so maybe that’s not a big deal.

Or is it?

With as relevant as Clinton has remained since her loss to Donald Trump in 2016 – the speaking engagements, tours with husband Bill, showing up on random television programs – might Hillary be contemplating yet a third run for the White House?

If so, she and Joe Biden would have that in common.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Paul Sperry, former D.C. bureau chief for “Investor’s Business Daily” and Hoover Institution media fellow, tweeted the following:

HILLARY CLINTON IS RUNNING AGAIN

Yep

She’s writing OpEds

She’s going on TV to renew her case, citing Mueller Report, that Putin helped Trump win, even suggesting votes were stolen from her in Florida

She’s advising how Dems can impeach Trump

Her husband is starting a podcast

From The Atlantic:

But on Saturday the Clintons stood before a crowd of their super fans, who’d pay for tickets to sit and listen to them talk. The room wasn’t quite sold out, but it did include more than one person who started cheering that Hillary should run again in 2020. “I think what everyone is hoping for is a nominee who will win both the popular vote and the Electoral College,” Hillary said, while declining to say anything specific about the field other than that “it’s really, really early in the process, and there’s so much that is yet to be revealed about each of the candidates. But we have so many very exciting, energetic candidates.” There was, however, a pointed mention later in the night about how much better she felt her own record on gun control was than that of her “primary opponent” in 2016—a reference to Bernie Sanders, who’s running again after having shifted on this issue, which was a major line of attack for Clinton in the last campaign.

After wandering through several other topics, from Bill’s funding of programs in Africa to what to do about gun violence now, they kept making their way back to 2020. Americans know better now, they said. Journalists know better now, social-media companies know better now, Democrats know better now, they insisted, blending spotty optimism about the future with resentment over everything from former FBI Director Jim Comey to The New York Times. Looking up at a screen projecting the famous photo of Obama and Hillary and others watching the bin Laden raid, Bill described the call he got from Obama the next day, before the news went public.

Of course, nothing has been confirmed.

As of May 5, 2019, a third Hillary run is merely hypothetical.

Speaking of hypothetical, Clinton appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program Wednesday night.

She basically said the 2020 Democrat candidate, whoever it winds up being, should openly ask for China’s help to defeat Trump.

Clinton noted, “Imagine Rachel, that you had one of the Democratic nominees for 2020 on your show and that person said ‘You know, the only other adversary of ours who’s anywhere near as good as the Russians, is China! So why should Russia have all the fun?’

She added, “China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns? I’m sure our media would richly reward you. Now, according to the Mueller report, that is not conspiracy because it’s done right out in the open.

WATCH:

News

SHADOW WAR: Judge Refuses to Reveal Info About FBI’s Raid on Project Veritas

The First Amendment itself is at stake here.

Published

on

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists.

In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children.

Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public.

A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden.

The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist.

The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks.

In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term to describe someone whose activities are being actively examined by the investigation but who is not currently seen as likely to be charged.

If Cave intended to use the term in that sense, it would raise further questions about the raid on O’Keefe’s home, since prosecutors are not typically permitted to use search or seizure warrants to get unpublished media materials about crimes allegedly committed by others.

O’Keefe’s attorney has said that the conservative provocateur bought the “rights” to publish the diary from two individuals who claimed to have obtained it legally. O’Keefe said the people who turned over the diary found it abandoned in a room where Ashley Biden had been staying.

Project Veritas’ First Amendment rights are very much a central issue in this case, and allowing the US government to decide which journalists qualify for these protections is a slippery slope to authoritarianism.

You know that things are heading downhill fast for the Biden administration when the FBI is forced to raid home and offices connected to investigative journalists. In this latest affront to the First Amendment, the Bureau took aim at Project Veritas – a provocative news outlet that just happens to lean to the right – and it’s founder, James O’Keefe, with both suffering raids of their homes after a story emerged regarding their potential possession of a “diary” that once belonged to one of the Biden children. Now, in what appears to be an attempt to keep this whole debacle as quiet as possible, a federal judge is refusing to let materials related to the case be seen by the public. A federal magistrate judge in Manhattan has turned down a bid by a journalism advocacy group to make public details about the legal basis for an FBI raid last month on the home of a conservative activist and hidden-camera video producer. The FBI seized cellphones in the early-morning, Nov. 6 raid on the apartment of Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe in Mamaroneck., N.Y., as part of an investigation that appears to center on the alleged theft of a diary belonging to President Joe Biden’s daughter, Ashley Biden. The use of a search warrant to seize O’Keefe’s records raised the hackles of some First Amendment advocates, who said O’Keefe’s activities likely qualify for protection for members of the news media under federal law and Justice Department regulations. O’Keefe’s critics say his deceptive tactics and evident partisan bias disqualify him from any claim to being a journalist. The entire fiasco appears to be turning muddy in recent weeks. In the 19-page ruling, the magistrate judge referred to O’Keefe as one of the “subjects” of the investigation. Federal prosecutors use that term…

Continue Reading

News

Vaccine Manufacturer Now Says Three Shots Required to Fend Off Omicron

At what point will this all end?

Published

on

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect.

Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance.

But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit.

Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron.

take our poll - story continues below

Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?

  • Who would you vote for if the elections were held today?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday.

Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said.

The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease.

“Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.”

The news is sure to elicit some grumbling from the masses, who are very much over the continued hysteria regarding COVID-19.

Our third COVID-19 winter is now arriving, and there appear to be varying ideas about just what the world should expect. Winter time has long brought about fears of an increased spread of the illness, thanks to the fact that many more folks will the gathering indoors, where the virus will have an opportunity to spread with less resistance. But the newest variant of the virus has been described as “mild” by the doctors most familiar with it, and even the normally-glum Dr. Anthony Fauci seems to have backed off of his earlier concerns a bit. Pfizer this week released a statement suggesting that their vaccine, originally administered in two doses, will require a third shot to be effective against omicron. Preliminary lab studies show two doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine may not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron coronavirus variant, but three doses are able to neutralize it, the companies said in a news release on Wednesday. Samples from people who had two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine saw, on average, a more than 25-fold reduction in neutralization ability against the Omicron variant than the earlier virus, “indicating that two doses of BNT162b2 may not be sufficient to protect against infection with the Omicron variant,” the companies said. The companies said two doses may still provide protection against severe disease. “Although two doses of the vaccine may still offer protection against severe disease caused by the Omicron strain, it’s clear from these preliminary data that protection is improved with a third dose of our vaccine,” Pfizer Chairman and CEO Albert Bourla said in a statement. “Ensuring as many people as possible are fully vaccinated with the first two dose series and a booster remains the best course of action to prevent the spread of COVID-19.” The news is sure…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week