Category: Hillary Clinton

The Pervert Party: Anthony Weiner Could Get 15 Years in Prison for Child Porn

Posted on

 

In July 2013, after former Democrat Rep. Anthony Weiner was caught “sexting” for the second time, I wrote a column for The American Spectator with a deliberately provocative title: “The Pervert Party”:

Perhaps now someone at the New York Times or the Washington Post will ask Patrick Frey what happens to bloggers who call attention to Anthony Weiner’s persistent fascination with young females. Or perhaps not. Either way, longtime readers of Frey’s Patterico blog know all about how, after he produced some of the most interesting research during the 2011 WeinerGate scandal, Frey was “SWATted” — the victim of a dangerous type of 911 hoax that dispatched armed police to Frey’s Los Angeles home, where the hoaxer had falsely reported a violent crime.
Whatever anyone might say about that incident, it certainly was not a coincidence, nor was it coincidental that liberal media organizations were perfectly willing to assist in Weiner’s political rehabilitation. There was a reason, after all, that Weiner’s young cybersex partner told her tale to a gossip blog, rather than to any major newspaper or TV network. If a conspicuously married Democrat politician is engaged in sleazy shenanigans with a 22-year-old, no respectable liberal journalist wants to break that story. In 2011, it was Andrew Breitbart who turned Anthony Weiner’s sordid secrets into a national drama that drove the New York congressmen to resign in disgrace. . . .

You can read the whole thing, if you wish to remind yourself of what was made apparent by Weiner’s disgrace, both in terms of the degradation of culture, and the role of the liberal media and the Democrat Party in enabling that degradation. In retrospect, it should have been obvious that a middle-aged married politician seeking out a 22-year-old “sugar baby” for online sex chats, after he has already been caught once in such affairs, was in the throes of a helpless and perverse obsession. A man so reckless as to be willing to destroy not only his reputation, but also his political career and his marriage, for the sake of kinky conversations with Sydney Leathers, probably was too far gone to recover. When Weiner was caught yet a third time in August 2016, however, it became evident that he was also willing to risk serious legal consequences:

Disgraced pervert and former congressman Anthony Weiner could soon face child-pornography charges as a result of a federal investigation into his electronic exchanges with a 15-year-old girl.
The FBI began investigating Weiner after the Daily Mail reported that the notorious “dick pic” enthusiast had exchanged in sexually explicit messaging with the underage girl. Writing under the pseudonym “T Dog,” Weiner reportedly asked the 15-year-old to dress up like a “school girl” and engage in “rape fantasies.” He allegedly told the girl he “would bust that tight p—y hard and so often that you would leak and limp for a week.”
It was federal investigators probing Weiner who uncovered emails potentially related to the Hillary Clinton investigation on several of Weiner’s electronic devices, prompting FBI director James Comey to inform members of Congress. Many Democrats have suggested Comey’s actions in response to the Weiner probe findings may have cost Hillary Clinton the election.
Weiner’s estranged wife, Huma Abedin, was a senior adviser to Clinton at the State Department, and maintained a prominent role in her presidential campaign.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Weiner’s attorneys have been in discussion with federal prosecutors in recent weeks, and have urged them not to bring serious charges in the case. The most serious charge Weiner could face is production of child pornography, because he allegedly solicited sexually explicit images from the underage girl. If convicted, Weiner could face a 15-year mandatory minimum jail sentence.
Lesser charges Weiner might face include receipt of child pornography or possession of child pornography. The former carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, while the latter charge has no mandatory minimum.

(Via Memeorandum.) Even if we could leave aside our moral judgment of Weiner’s behavior, we would still be left to contemplate the strictly pragmatic issues involved in his case. It can be fairly argued that Weiner caused Hillary Clinton’s defeat last November, not only because of Comey’s FBI investigation, but also because Weiner’s third sexting scandal called attention to his wife, Clinton’s personal aide Huma Abedin. This in turn reminded many people of the widely held opinion, dating back to the 1990s, that Bill and Hillary have an “arrangement” in their marriage. And, of course, this rekindled speculation about Hillary’s own sexual preferences. Were such opinions and speculation fair to the Clintons? Fairness doesn’t count for much in politics.

Why is it, after all, that the Republican Party has long enjoyed strong support from so-called “values voters”? Isn’t it true that Democrats are the party that celebrates abortion and homosexuality? And what kind of people do we expect to find holding leadership positions in such a party? Republicans have certainly suffered their share of ugly sex scandals in recent years (e.g., Denny Hastert), and such hypocrisy is deeply offensive to those conservatives who expect their leaders to “walk the walk.” However, when a Democrat like Weiner is caught in such a scandal, it could be argued, his behavior is entirely consistent with the policies his party advocates. Democrats are the Pervert Party, and Anthony Weiner is therefore the perfect symbol of his party’s values.



 

RELATED:

 

The #WomensMarch: Why Trump Won

Posted on Comments

 

 

 

 

Does that look like a mainstream political movement to you?

Ugly women holding up ugly signs expressing ugly sentiments — the #WomensMarch to protest Donald Trump’s presidency is perhaps the clearest explanation of why Donald Trump is president. The all-out feminist crusade mounted on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign reminded millions of Americans of why they hate feminism. Yet it is clear today that Democrats have learned nothing from their defeat:

Wearing pink, pointy-eared “pussyhats” to mock the new president, throngs of women descended on the nation’s capital and other cities around the globe Saturday for marches and demonstrations aimed at showing Donald Trump they won’t be silent over the next four years.
They carried signs with messages such as “Women won’t back down” and “Less fear more love” and decried Trump’s stand on such issues as abortion, diversity and climate change. . . .
The march attracted significant support from celebrities. America Ferrara led the artists’ contingent, and those scheduled to speak in Washington included Scarlett Johansson, Ashley Judd, Melissa Harris-Perry and Michael Moore. The promised performance lineup included Janelle Monae, Maxwell, Samantha Ronson, the Indigo Girls and Mary Chapin Carpenter. Cher, Katy Perry and Julianne Moore all were expected to attend.

Here’s a question: If “significant support from celebrities” has a political influence, then why is Hillary Clinton not president? Practically every celebrity in Hollywood lined up behind the Democrat candidate during the 2016 presidential election, but getting support from the rich and famous didn’t seem to help her win over working-class voters in Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, did it?

 

Oh. let’s talk about “such issues as abortion, diversity and climate change” — say the wealthy show-business names and the powerful Democrat politicians and the spoiled-rotten rich girls who go to private liberal arts colleges where they major in Gender Studies. And then Democrats wonder why honest hard-working people vote Republican:

Women who cheered President Donald Trump and danced at the inaugural balls in Washington on Friday said the Women’s March scheduled for Saturday has them baffled and indignant that one group would presume to speak for all women.
“I think it’s great, do your thing, but I just don’t know what they’re doing it for. They’re talking about rights, women’s rights, but what rights are being taken away from any women?” asked Susan Clarke, 50, who came to the capital from Charlotte, North Carolina, and wore a blue, bedazzled “Tar Heel Deplorable” shirt. “I don’t understand what the point is.” . . .
“They can protest, it’s their right, but don’t call it the ‘Women’s March,’ ” said Ellie Todd, 23, who drove to the inauguration with two friends from Spartanburg, South Carolina. “That makes it sounds like it’s a big unified thing, when really they’re picking very divisive issues and protesting against Trump — who by the way is now our president — instead of for something that would bring us all together. It’s not all women.”

Democrats still haven’t processed the cause of their defeat and let’s hope they never figure out why their political power has evaporated:

What do Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have in common, other than being the swing states that flipped Donald Trump into the Presidency? All are among the many states in which Democrats lost control of their state legislature in the past decade. For Democrats, now at their lowest ebb in power since at least the 1920’s, the results of that loss in state-level influence have been both catastrophic and entirely predictable. . . .
Since 2008, Republicans have taken nine hundred legislative districts from Democrats, securing control not just in the South, where many voters oppose President Obama, but in such diverse locales as Michigan and Maine.

During the eight years when liberals were rallying around the symbol of Obama’s presidency, Republicans were quietly working state-by-state and district-by-district to organize conservative opposition. This was largely invisible to the liberal elite in New York, D.C., Boston, San Francisco and L.A., and on the campuses of universities where political discrimination prevents Republicans from being employed on the faculty. All the liberal journalists and progressive professors and Hollywood celebrities were so certain they were “on the right side of history,” they didn’t even notice that the Democrat Party had become increasingly irrelevant to the lives of millions of Americans who don’t live inside the liberal bubble.

Nowhere was this more evident than in the Democrat Party’s orchestrated propaganda campaign to popularize the Feminist™ brand. By summer 2014, it was apparent that a network of Democrat-funded tax-exempt groups was promoting a “feminist” message, especially targeted at college girls and 20-something millennials, in an effort aimed at making Hillary Clinton the “inevitable” Democrat presidential nominee for 2016.

 

 

 

A key component of this was White House-sponsored support for The Campus Rape Frenzy, to borrow the title of K.C. Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr.’s new book. Rolling Stone‘s rape hoax at the University of Virginia originated as an attempt by the pro-Hillary media to give a semblance of reality to the bogus “1-in-5” statistic promoted by feminists and their Democrat allies. More than 100 male students filed lawsuits claiming they were falsely accused and denied due-process rights as a result of this dishonest “rape culture” campaign.

By using false propaganda to demonize males, Democrats hoped first to defeat any male candidate who challenged Hillary Clinton for her party’s nomination, and then to ride this “feminist” momentum to victory in the 2016 general election campaign. How did that work out, Jessica?

 

Feminists have not merely lost. They have deserved defeat. Now they’re so desperate, they’re trying to import foreigners to protest Trump:

Would-be protesters heading to the Women’s March on Washington have said they were denied entry to the United States after telling border agents at a land crossing in Quebec their plans to attend the march.
Montrealer Sasha Dyck was part of a group of eight who had arranged online to travel together to Washington. Divided into two cars, the group — six Canadians and two French nationals — arrived at the border crossing that connects St Bernard de Lacolle in Quebec with Champlain, New York, on Thursday.
The group was upfront about their plans with border agents, Dyck said. “We said we were going to the women’s march on Saturday and they said, ‘Well, you’re going to have to pull over’.”
What followed was a two-hour ordeal. Their cars were searched and their mobile phones examined. Each member of the group was fingerprinted and had their photo taken.
Border agents first told the two French citizens that they had been denied entry to the US and informed them that any future visit to the US would now require a visa.

Go back to Canada, you filthy scum. We’re making America great again.



 

 

RELATED:

 

 

Video Shows Democrat Hate Crime in Chicago: ‘F–k Trump! F–k White People!’

Posted on Comments

 

Four young supporters of Barack Obama wanted to show the world what the Democrat Party stands for, so they kidnapped a mentally disabled young white man, bound and gagged him, and tortured him in a West Side Chicago apartment, livestreaming video of their hate crime on Facebook.

Police say they have arrested four 18-year-old suspects — two black males and two black females — in connection with the incident that Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson called “sickening.”

Police document shows suspect in this week’s Chicago torture incident.

One of the suspects, Brittany Herring, a/k/a Brittany Covington, had been arrested for larceny in October. This week’s atrocity occurred in the city where Obama once worked as a “community organizer,” where Hillary Clinton got 84% of the vote on Election Day, and where Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been mayor since 2011. Chicago is also a city where nearly 800 people were murdered in 2016, with more homicides than New York and Los Angeles combined.

 

The video torture of the young white man by black Chicago teens shouting “f–k Trump” and “f–k white people,” came in the wake of nearly two months of incitement by Democrats and their liberal media allies, after the Nov. 8 election in which Clinton lost to Donald Trump. Encouraged by sympathetic coverage from CNN and other liberal TV networks, Democrat protesters using the slogan “Not My President” have staged rallies denouncing white people as “racist” for voting Republican.

 

Chicago Democrats protested against Trump in November.

Since the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri, the Democrat-funded activist group Black Lives Matter has encouraged violence against police and against white people, inciting riots in Baltimore in April 2015 and in Charlotte, N.C., last September. In July, 11 Dallas police officers were shot by a terrorist named Micah Xavier Johnson who was inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement. The Dallas attack “was part of an ongoing wave of violent racial terrorism targeting American law enforcement” that included shootings of police in Tennessee, Missouri and Georgia.

In her recent book The War on Cops: How the New Attack on Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, Heather Mac Donald described how false narratives promoted by the Black Lives Matter movement were “amplified by the media, college presidents, and the left-wing political class.” Despite clear evidence that the group’s protests were jeopardizing public safety and inciting crimes against police, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other prominent Democrats expressed support for the Black Lives Matter movement. In their book The Worst President in History: The Legacy of Barack Obama, authors Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan describe how the president’s public rhetoric has shown “a tendency to use race as a wedge to divide Americans,” politically exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin and the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson.

Democrats express their hatred of the president-elect.

Despite the racial violence Democrats have incited, and despite evidence that resentment of the Obama administration’s anti-white policies factored into Clinton’s November defeat, the liberal media continue promoting the Democrats’ anti-Trump/anti-white message. John Hinderaker at Powerline observed how the Associated Press attempted to conceal the racial politics of the Chicago atrocity, while Glenn Reynolds commented on the failure of most major media outlets to connect the dots of this racial hate crime: “If the races were reversed, there would be near-unanimous media efforts to blame Trump, and they wouldn’t be waiting until all the facts were in to do it.”



 

 

RELATED:

 

Hillary Is Madonna or Something

Posted on Comments

Everybody wants to play pundit nowadays. The New York Times unleashed its arts writers on the most over-analyzed election in history:

“I was called a whore and a witch,” Madonna said on Friday in a searing speech about the sexism and bullying that women face in the music industry and the culture at large.
“Such a nasty woman,” Donald J. Trump interjected in October as Hillary Clinton pointed out holes in his Social Security plan during their final presidential debate.
Madonna and Mrs. Clinton: both trailblazers, both polarizing figures, and both attacked for actions, choices and behavior that are broadly accepted — even applauded — when done by their male peers. Madonna herself made a connection between the two women before her speech Friday, saying it was “really important to make a stand and speak my mind” about women’s rights after Mrs. Clinton’s loss in November.
Our pop music editor, Caryn Ganz, and deputy Culture editor and former political correspondent Patrick Healy looked at how Madonna and her speech put Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy in fresh perspective. . . .

Go read the whole thing and ask yourself: Why?

Why does every liberal with access to a computer feel the need to share their “perspective” on this topic? Why do we care what Madonna says?

Isn’t the purpose of this kind of “journalism” essentially therapeutic?

Aren’t these New York Times writers basically grieving in public, and inviting their fellow liberals to console themselves about Hillary’s loss by saying, “All great women suffer the slings and arrows of misogyny”? By putting the whole election into “perspective” — a perspective where even millionaire pop stars and powerful politicians can think of themselves as victims of patriarchal oppression — the New York Times invites their affluent liberal readers to share in the sense of communal victimhood. Is the entire staff of the New York Times gobbling Prozac and Paxil? Are there any emotionally stable journalists employed there, or is the entire staff just one big group therapy session for depressed neurotics?

 

War on Women: Democrats Ready to Throw Nancy Pelosi Under the Bus?

Posted on Comments

 

The irony here is rather delicious:

In the aftermath of Democrats’ demoralizing election defeat, Representative Nancy Pelosi’s bid to return as minority leader has been transformed into a larger debate about what has gone wrong with a party that eight years ago controlled Congress and the White House.
Ms. Pelosi, a 76-year-old San Francisco progressive, is expected to easily win re-election when her colleagues vote on Wednesday. But she has become a stand-in for complaints that Democrats have failed to offer a compelling, broad-based economic message to the working-class voters in the Midwest and South who helped them capture the House 10 years ago and made Ms. Pelosi the first woman speaker.
Representative Tim Ryan, who represents a blue-collar district in northeastern Ohio, has mounted an unexpected challenge to Ms. Pelosi and given voice to the message that House Democrats must broaden their appeal beyond the three liberal states — California, Massachusetts and New York — that now account for a third of their members.
Mr. Ryan argues that his party can only rebuild if it re-establishes itself as the party of the working class.
“We’ve lost that brand, and that’s the brand that gets you elected,” said Mr. Ryan, who is also thought by colleagues to be considering running for governor of Ohio in 2018.

Democrats talking about the popular vote — which Clinton won by a margin of more than 2 million votes — fail to acknowledge that this reflects lopsided majorities in a handful of ultra-liberal states. Clinton carried California by 3.4 million votes, New York by 2.5 million votes, Massachusetts by 900,000 votes, and Illinois by 800,000 votes. Pandering to liberal elites, Clinton ran up her totals in urban areas to gain a margin of more than 6 million votes in four states with 115 Electoral College votes. Meanwhile, Trump appealed to those who have spent the past eight years bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles, to paraphrase a certain Harvard Law graduate’s putdown of Americans who have to work for a living. This “basket of deplorables,” to quote a certain Yale Law graduate’s description, turned out to include a surprising number of voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Democrats have become a party for decadent elitists who cannot hide their contempt for the opinions and values of anyone who can’t afford to send their kids to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oberlin, Occidental, etc. Donald Trump got the votes of every ordinary American smart enough to understand that limousine liberals like Nancy Pelosi (who “is among the richest members of Congress, with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million”) don’t give a damn about them.

 

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Noting quite so perfectly demonstrated Hillary Clinton’s absolute disdain for ordinary Americans than her willingness to lie to them about what happened to the four Americans killed in Benghazi. These “little old liberal white ladies,” as Kevin Williamson called them, get plenty of support from commies who burn the American flag, from college kids who love Fidel Castro, and from wealthy celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem. Democrats are then shocked to discover that this does not endear them to patriotic Americans who work for a living.

“The American flag has represented this imperialist, white supremacist, hegemonic masculinity.”
— Isaiah Young, American University

Exit polls show Trump beat Clinton by a 26-point margin among voters who had served in the U.S. military, and his margin was 14 points among voters who attend church on a weekly basis. Nancy Pelosi received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, in recognition of her work to ensure that American taxpayers continue funding America’s largest abortion provider. Do you think that might have something to do with Democrats losing support among Catholic working-class voters in the industrial Midwest? I think maybe it does.

A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. Democrats kill babies. Democrats burn the American flag. Democrats hate Jesus.

Democrats still don’t understand why they keep losing:

“I think a lot of people are unsure if we want the faces of the party to be Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: liberals from New York and California. It was different with a Democratic president — he was the face of the party, but now they will be,” the Democrat said.
One Democratic member said that while they like and admire Pelosi, they thought the election results meant it was time for her to step aside: “I just don’t think you can look at the election and say we should keep doing what we’ve been doing.”

Fifty-eight million dead babies could not be reached for comment.



 

 


Hillary Finds Her Scapegoat

Posted on Comments

 

This was predictable:

Hillary Clinton on Saturday cast blame for her surprise election loss on the announcement by the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, days before the election that he had revived the inquiry into her use of a private email server.
In her most extensive remarks since she conceded the race to Donald J. Trump early Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton told donors on a 30-minute conference call that Mr. Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress about the inquiry 11 days before Election Day had thrust the controversy back into the news and had prevented her from ending the campaign with an optimistic closing argument.
“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”
Mrs. Clinton said a second letter from Mr. Comey, clearing her once again, which came two days before Election Day, had been even more damaging. In that letter, Mr. Comey said an examination of a new trove of emails, which had been found on the computer of Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of one of her top aides, had not caused him to change his earlier conclusion that Mrs. Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.
Her campaign said the seemingly positive outcome had only hurt it with voters who did not trust Mrs. Clinton and were receptive to Mr. Trump’s claims of a “rigged system.” In particular, white suburban women who had been on the fence were reminded of the email imbroglio and broke decidedly in Mr. Trump’s favor, aides said. . . .

You can read the rest. Hillary’s claim is both true and false. On the one hand, it is certainly true that the FBI letter caused renewed attention to the former Secretary of State’s email scandal. My Oct. 30 headline was “SHOCKING: TRUMP SURGES IN POLL; HILLARY DOOMED BY F.B.I. PROBE?” On the other hand, blaming FBI director Comey is wrong, because this implies that Hillary was innocent of wrongdoing, when it is plainly evident that the whole purpose of her private email server was to allow her a secret way to conduct business that benefited the Clinton Foundation. She deliberately tried to evade federal law and she got caught, period. Her attempts to create an “innocent” explanation of the email scandal were classic Clintonian deceit.

The real problem is that, like all other Democrats, Hillary Clinton believes very deeply in her own moral superiority. Being a liberal means being on the side of the angels, every Democrat believes, and this sense of political righteousness endows them with a certainty that nothing they do can ever be wrong. Democrats believe they are good people — smarter and better than everybody else — and they are working for a good cause, and therefore the rules don’t apply to them. This mentality makes Democrats very dangerous, because what is morality without rules?

Well, she lost, and so we’ll be spared the experience of seeing her prove what a bad president she would be. What the future holds in a Trump presidency, I don’t know, but the Clintons are history. Thank God.



 

 

RELATED:

 

Hate, Lies and ‘Social Justice’

Posted on Comments

 

Dishonesty, selfishness and cruelty are the basic principles of the Democrat Party in 2016, although “social justice” is what Democrats call their perverse ideology. As the American people go to the polls today, Hillary Clinton’s supporters are expressing their dangerous beliefs:

“What about diversity of opinion?” That question has been a common response to our real fear for our and others’ safety from the hate- and fear-mongering of Trump’s campaign. Those who ask often define inclusion as requiring all people and views to be included?– regardless of how they promote excluding others. We find this definition offensive and reject it.
Trump is uniquely harmful, because his actions are beyond political speech — he actively promotes and festers hate and violence.

In other words, disagreeing with Democrats is not “diversity of opinion.” Disagreeing with Democrats promotes “hate and violence,” and therefore it is wrong, bad and evil to disagree with Democrats. This totalitarian certainty, the belief that no one has a right to oppose “social justice,” is a preemptive justification for the suppression of dissent.

A similar argument was made by Sarah Lerner, a young California Democrat who believes it is wrong for anyone to suggest that people who vote for Donald Trump are deserving of empathy or compassion:

If you vote Republican, you’re a hateful, racist, sexist ignoramus, Sarah Lerner says, and certainly every Democrat shares her opinion. You may be sure that Hillary Clinton has only contempt for you, Republican voters.
According to the final Real Clear Politics average of national polls, Clinton has 45.5% support to 42.2% for the GOP nominee Donald Trump. Four years ago, about 125 million Americans voted in the presidential election. If this year’s turnout matches the 2012 total, that means about 53 million people will vote for Trump — 53 million hateful, racist, sexist ignoramuses, per Ms. Lerner.
If you are one of these 53 million, Ms. Lerner says, you deserve no empathy. She informs us that “racism and xenophobia” are the “driving force” of your support for Trump. Also, your “hateful attitudes toward women.” . . .

You can read the rest at Medium.com.

Never doubt that Democrats hate you. Hillary Clinton believes you deserve to be hated, and everyone in the liberal media agrees with her.



 

If Hillary Loses Ohio …

Posted on

 

. . . well, finish that sentence however you wish:

Republican Donald Trump holds a 5-point lead over Democrat Hillary Clinton in Ohio, where her support among women is collapsing, according to a new poll released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University.
If the election were today, Trump would get 46 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent while independent Gary Johnson would pull 5 percent of the vote and Green Party candidate Jill Stein would get 2 percent, the poll found. Women voters are now split 44-44 in Ohio while 17 days ago Clinton held a 12-point lead in the same poll with female voters.
Peter Brown, Quinnipiac University assistant poll director, offered no explanation for the finding that Clinton’s support among Ohio woman is eroding, other than Trump is doing better overall in Ohio than he is in other swing states.
Quinnipiac reported on Wednesday that Clinton holds slim leads in other key states: One point in Florida, three points in North Carolina and five points in Pennsylvania. . . .
“No one has been elected president since 1960 without carrying two of the key swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And, this year, North Carolina has been added to the mix. All four of these key states remain close entering the final days,” Brown said in a written statement. “Florida, which has the largest cache of electoral votes, is a virtual tie and North Carolina is almost as close. Donald Trump’s strength is with independent voters.” . . .

The possibility that the Huma Abedin/Anthony Weiner email scandal could damage Hillary so badly in the closing week of the campaign that Trump pulls off a miracle comeback, is the sort of karmic payback Team Clinton richly deserves. The Clintons made a deal with the Devil long ago. Bill sold his soul to become president, lied his way through an impeachment scandal, and Hillary was this close to winning the White House just a couple of weeks ago. Yet now all the effort and money that has been poured into her campaign is on the verge of being lost because emails that weren’t supposed to exist — emails that Huma Abedin swore under oath she did not have — turned up on a device found by FBI agents investigating Anthony Weiner’s sexting with a 15-year-old girl.

Secret Recordings Fueled
FBI Feud in Clinton Probe
— Wall Street Journal

Bret Baier: FBI Sources Believe
Clinton Foundation Case Moving
Towards “Likely an Indictment”
— Real Clear Politics

FBI’s Clinton Foundation investigation
now ‘a very high priority,’ sources say
— Fox News

Once that Giant Wheel O’ Karma starts turning, you never know what might happen. Anything is possible. All bets are off with five days to go.