Proof that the democrats/liberals/left in general have no concept that today with the internet debunking and info-sharing is so-o-o-o easy … Which might be why Barack Obama is so eager to hand off the internet to other countries that can cut-that-shit-out, dontch know…
As a rule, reporters like to keep their stories interesting, which is why the coverage we’ve seen of Alicia Machado is so curious.
This has been the week of Machado, who became famous literally overnight when Hillary Clinton brought her up at Monday’s debate. The next day saw numerous outlets writing pieces on Machado, boosted along by a conference call held by the Clinton campaign for journalists.
The most interesting thing about the mainstream articles is what they leave out. There is no discussion at CNN or The New York Times, for instance, about her post-pageant fame as the fiancée of Phillies outfielder Bobby Abreu, or how he reportedly called it off after a reality show she was on revealed video of her apparently having sex with a housemate.
Likewise, there is little mention of how a Venezuelan judge once alleged on live TV that Machado had threatened to kill him. Or how the Mexican attorney general’s office later said she was the girlfriend of a major narco trafficker, and that she he had a child with him, according to Univision and other outlets. Or how a government witness who reportedly testified about their affair was later shot to death.
A certain reticence is fair and appropriate when discussing the private lives of people alleging abuse at the hands of powerful men. The Clintons, of course, are no strangers to this, as they have been accused repeatedly of trying to smear women who’ve said President Clinton was sexually inappropriate with them.
But there’s something odd about news coverage that avoids easily available and fascinating stories about that person’s life. And it’s especially peculiar when that person is a campaign surrogate for a major party nominee, which is what Machado is now.
Tax deductions that Bill and Hillary Clinton took for computer maintenance expenses match up closely with payments they made to Bryan Pagliano, Hillary Clinton’s personal email technician, a Daily Caller investigation reveals.
The payments to Pagliano were revealed in notes released on Friday from his Dec. 22 interview with the bureau. Investigators cited documents showing that the Clintons made a $5,000 transfer to Pagliano in 2009, and another in June 2011 for $8,350.83.
The Clintons’ publicly available tax filings show that the former first couple deducted similar amounts from Bill Clinton’s speechmaking income for computer maintenance expenses in those same years.
The Clintons also depreciated computer equipment that was put in service in June 2011 — the same month Pagliano traveled to the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, N.Y. to work on the server — as well as at other times when major changes were made to the off-the-books email system.
Notably, the tax deductions are larger than the payments to Pagliano. If the inverse was true — if the tax deductions were smaller than the payments to Pagliano — that would suggest that the deductions were for something other than the payments to the technician. The Clintons and Pagliano could help settle the matter, but they did not respond to requests for comment.
The IRS does not allow taxpayers to deduct personal expenses, and Clinton treated the private email server as a personal device. She declined to tell the State Department she used it, and she kept it at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y.
3. Roger L. Simon @ PJM: Hillary and the Democrats Continue Their War on Blacks
Forget all the back and forth on the first debate, the pundits, the people, the polls, the bizarre claims and counter-claims of an aging Venezuelan porn star. All that can and will change, if it hasn’t already. Or will disappear among a new set of talking points, real or imagined, after the second debate.
Only one assertion of enduring importance was made on Monday—one that slipped quickly by, but will continue to fester under the surface for those eighty or so million watching and have a profound and deeply unfortunate effect on our culture.
Hillary Clinton declared that all Americans are racist, at least implicitly…
So we’re all racists now in Hillary Land.
Note I didn’t say Hillary’s view because this statement was not based on any form of reasoned observation, but on pure political calculation under the self-aggrandizing and self-deluding mask of moral narcissism. (I apologize for bringing up the subject of my recent book. But this just happens to be one of the most perfect and dangerous examples I have ever encountered of this increasingly pervasive phenomenon.)
Here’s the calculation part that occurred as I see it: In response to Holt’s question, Hilary didn’t know what to say about the police that wouldn’t offend someone, so she spread the accusation to everyone. We’re all guilty (meaning, one assumes, all white people, although that was naturally left unsaid). At the same time, obviously, she was doing her best to pander to the black vote that, for the first time in a long while, has been a tiny bit more fragile for the Democrats.
The moral-narcissism component allows Clinton to assume the mantle of the “good person,” that she is doing the”right thing” when her policies and those of her party have had the exact opposite result for black communities that have been in steep decline for some time. Holt, of course, never raised that possibility.
Underlying all this is a ruthless attempt to encourage that most pernicious, self-defeating and self-fulfilling prophecy that African-Americans will always be victims. And if they are victims, they always vote Democrat, the party of victimhood. (If they don’t vote Democrat, they support professional victimhood organizations like Black Lives Matter until the proper deals are made and they do vote Democrat again, a roundelay of unhappily ever after.)
The result of all this? Bodies in the street. A lot of them. Almost all black.
4. Hillary’s book-pitching: Amazon deletes over one thousand bad reviews to cover for Hillary’s abysmal book sales
Things must really be bad for Hillary Clinton when even her book reviews have to be “fixed” to make her more appealing.
Clinton’s newest book, “Stronger Together,” co-authored with running mate Tim Kaine, has been met with abysmal sales and critical reviews. But Amazon.com came to the rescue by reportedly removing negative reviews of the book from its website, according to WND.com.
With a slow sales start since hitting book shelves on Sept. 6, the campaign book which outlines policies of a Clinton presidency, earned 81 percent one-star ratings and an average of only 1.7 on Amazon.com.
But last week, Amazon deleted hundreds of critical reviews of the book according to WND.com which has been tracking the numbers. There were more than 1,200 reviews at one point and that number grew to more than 2,000.
By Thursday afternoon, however, there were only 255 and many of the negative reviews had been removed.
5. About Trump’s crappy debate mic: Debate Commission: Donald Trump’s Audio Was Faulty Inside Hall
The Commission on Presidential Debates said in a statement Friday that Republican nominee Donald Trump’s microphone was faulty during Monday night’s first presidential debate, affecting the audio in the hall—but not on the television broadcast.
After the debate Trump remarked about the apparent issue with the microphone as he made his way through the spin room at Hofstra University. As his performance was panned in subsequent days, Trump repeated that his microphone was faulty.
A TIME reporter was the designated pool reporter in the hall Monday night and observed that the audio volume as Trump spoke fluctuated, making him sound quieter on stage. Clinton’s microphone didn’t suffer the same issue. In a one-line statement, the commission said it was due to a microphone issue.