‘Still too much’: Clintons’ speaking tour prices slashed, available for less than $14

CAP

Demand for tickets to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s speaking tour has been so sluggish that organizers have had to slash prices to get bums on seats. It’s almost as if they’re a spent political force that no one wants to listen to.

You may not have heard, but the the former president and the twice-failed presidential candidate have been touring North America speaking to audiences about their careers and “where we go from here.”

The promotional material for ‘An Evening With The Clintons’ promises “a one-of-a-kind conversation with two individuals who have helped shape our world and had a front seat to some of the most important moments in modern history.”

ALSO ON RT.COM‘Still salty about losing’: Twitter users stunned by Hillary calling for China to hack TrumpHowever, it seems that the public doesn’t have much interest in hearing what the Clintons have to say. Mercifully, Sunday’s event in Las Vegas is the final show before the tour finally wraps up.

Tickets can be purchased for less than $14. Saturday evening’s show in Los Angeles saw prices drop as low as $6, while tickets for Friday’s event in Seattle could be picked up for $20. It’s a far cry from when Hillary used to reportedly command $275,000 to make speeches to Wall Street firms.

Even these bargain-basement prices are far too steep for many on social media, however, as people seem perplexed by the fact that anyone is willing to pay any amount of money to see the Clintons.

CAP

CAP

CAP

Those who did go to any of the events may well have been left disappointed as the couple have largely steered clear of mentioning US President Donald Trump.

However, Hillary did throw some red meat to the crowd at the Seattle engagement. “I really believe that we are in a crisis, a constitutional crisis,” she told the audience, the Seattle Times reports.

“We are in a crisis of confidence and a crisis over the rule of law and the institutions that have weathered a lot of problems over so many years. And it is something that, regardless of where you stand in the political spectrum, should give real heartburn to everybody. Because this is a test for our country.”

Barr Launches Wide-Ranging Probe Into 2016 FBI Spying

By Tyler Durden

Attorney General William Barr told the Senate Judiciary Panel this week that he has assembled a team at the Justice Department to probe whether the spying conducted by the FBI against the Trump campaign in 2016 was improper, reports Bloomberg.

Barr suggested that he would focus on former senior leaders at the FBI and Justice Department.

“To the extent there was overreach, what we have to be concerned about is a few people at the top getting it into their heads that they know better than the American people,” said Barr.

Barr will also review whether the infamous Steele dossier – a collection of salacious and unverified claims against Donald Trump, assembled by a former British spy and paid for by the Clinton campaign – was fabricated by the Russian government to trick the FBI and other US agencies. (Will Barr investigate whether Steele made the whole thing up for his client, Fusion GPS?)

“We now know that he was being falsely accused,” Barr said of Trump. “We have to stop using the criminal justice process as a political weapon.”

Mueller’s report didn’t say there were false accusations against Trump. It said the evidence of cooperation between the campaign and Russia “was not sufficient to support criminal charges.” Investigators were unable to get a complete picture of the activities of some relevant people, the special counsel found.

Although Barr’s review has only begun, it’s helping to fuel a narrative long embraced by Trump and some of his Republican supporters: that the Russia investigation was politically motivated and concocted from false allegations in order to spy on Trump’s campaign and ultimately undermine his presidency. –Bloomberg

As Bloomberg notes, Barr’s review could receive a boost by a Thursday New York Times article acknowledging that the FBI sent a ‘honeypot’ spy to London in 2016 to pose as a research assistant and gather intelligence from Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos over possible Trump campaign links to Russia.

The Trump re-election campaign immediately seized on the Times report as evidence that improper spying did occur. “As President Trump has said, it is high time to investigate the investigators,” said Trump campaign manager, Brad Parscale in a statement.

During Barr’s Wednesday testimony, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) told Barr “It appears to me that the Obama administration, Justice Department and FBI decided to place their bets on Hillary Clinton and focus their efforts” when it came to investigating the Trump campaign.

Depending on what Barr finds, his review of the Russia probe could give Trump ammunition to defend himself in continuing congressional inquiries — and in a potential impeachment for obstructing justice. Barr told senators that Trump’s actions can’t be seen as obstruction if he was exercising his constitutional authority as president to put an end to an illegitimate investigation.

Barr’s efforts follow two years of work by a group of House Republicans who have been conducting dozens of interviews regarding the FBI’s and Justice Department’s conduct in the early stages of investigation of Trump and his campaign. –Bloomberg

On Thursday, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) issued a criminal referral for Nellie Ohr – a former Fusion GPS contractor who passed anti-Trump research to her husband, then the #4 official at the DOJ. 

On Thursday, Meadows said that Barr’s “willingness to investigate the origins of the Russia investigation is the first step in putting the questionable practices of the past behind us,” and that the AG’s “tenacity is sure to be rewarded.”

The FBI opened its counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign after a self-professed member of the Clinton Foundation, Joseph Mifsud, fed Papadopoulos the rumor that Russia had “dirt” on Clinton. That rumor would be coaxed out of the former Trump aide by another Clinton-connected individual – Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who would notify authorities of Papadopoulos’ admission, officially launching the investigation.

Barr says he wants to get to the bottom of it.

His review will examine the above chain of events that set the investigation into motion, and whether any US agencies were engaged in spying on or investigating the Trump campaign before the probe was officially launched.

Barr said he’s working with FBI Director Christopher Wray “to reconstruct exactly what went down.” He said he has “people in the department helping me review the activities over the summer of 2016.”

Notably, Barr said his aides will be “working very closely” with the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz.

Horowitz is conducting his own investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation and whether there were abuses when the FBI obtained a secret warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in October 2016 to spy on another foreign policy adviser to the campaign, Carter Page. –Bloomberg

Barr will also investigate when the DOJ and FBI knew that the Democratic Party and Clinton was Steele

More subterfuge, or is this really happening?

NYT Chief WH Correspondent: Here’s The Real Reason Obama Didn’t Address Russian Meddling In 2016

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

“…if I speak out more, he’ll just say it’s rigged…”

In his recently updated and expanded book on former President Obama, “Obama: The Call Of History,” The New York Times’ Chief White House Correspondent Peter Baker addresses several hot-button topics, including why Obama failed to adequately address Russian meddling ahead of the 2016 election and his response to “buffoonish showman” Donald Trump shocking the world by defeating Hillary Clinton, a response that involved “multiple emotional stages.”

In one of the sections of the book highlighted by The Daily Mail Friday, Baker peels back the curtain on why Obama was so weak in his response to Russian meddling ahead of the election in 2016 — something for which Trump has hammered Obama amid all the Robert Mueller-debunked “collusion” allegations.
“Anything the Russians did concerning the 2016 Election was done while Obama was President. He was told about it and did nothing! Most importantly, the vote was not affected,” Trump tweeted last month.
Screen Shot 2019-05-03 at 11.01.00 AM

The reason Obama didn’t act more decisively and rebuke Russia more directly, says Baker is that he feared that it might “escalate” the Russian interference campaign. This cautious approach, Baker suggests, flows out of Obama’s “don’t do stupid sh**” foreign policy philosophy, an approach for which Obama has been criticized in the past.

But fearing the escalation of the campaign wasn’t the only reason Obama didn’t act more forcefully, says Baker: Obama reportedly once admitted that “if I speak out more, he’ll just say it’s rigged.”

According to Baker, in one meeting Obama — who was convinced like most of the political establishment that Clinton was going to win — said confidently that Russian President Vladimir Putin had “backed the wrong horse” by supposedly helping Trump’s campaign.

As the Daily Mail notes, it was only after the election, which Trump won in stunning fashion, that Obama finally took action against the Russians as punishment for the meddling his administration had known about for months. Obama’s decision to expel a bunch of Russian diplomats conveniently fed into the “collusion” narrative that had already gotten rolling and which the election’s loser, Clinton, helped promote.

The Daily Mail also draws attention to another juicy passage in the book which reveals new details about Obama’s response to Trump’s upset victory over the woman who was supposed to protect Obama’s legacy.

Accoring to Baker, Obama watched the Marvel film “Dr. Strange” on election night with Michelle and Valerie Jarrett. At one point, Baker writes, Obama received an update on his phone and said, “Huh. Results in Florida are looking kind of strange.”

While Michelle went to sleep early, Obama stayed up and witnessed Trump’s devastating defeat of Clinton, which Baker suggests Obama found unthinkable because he thought there was “no way Americans would turn on him.”

According to Baker, Obama phoned Clinton at 1 a.m. and advised her to concede quickly, advice she didn’t take. In response, she supposedly said, “I’m sorry for letting you down.”

Obama and his team, Baker says, did in fact feel that Clinton had let them down. “To Obama and his team … the real blame lay squarely with Clinton. She was the one who could not translate his strong record and healthy economy into a winning message.”

Related: BOMBSHELL: Ukraine Embassy Says DNC Operative Reached Out For Dirt On Trump In 2016, Report Says

TUCKER RESPONDS TO BRIAN WILLIAMS FACT-CHECKING GRAHAM: ‘PLEASE, GET SOME SELF-AWARENESS’

Tucker Responds To Brian Williams Fact-Checking Graham: ‘Please, Get Some Self-Awareness’

“Just another fact-check from a guy suspended for lying.”

By Phillip Stucky

Fox News host Tucker Carlson responded to MSNBC’s Brian Williams’ decision to fact-check Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s speech during Attorney General William Barr’s Wednesday hearing on Capitol Hill.

“MSNBC, if you were watching, you may have noticed, could not contain its excitement during the Attorney General’s testimony. During the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham noted quite correctly that Mueller’s report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Brian Williams wouldn’t have it, they cut in to call Graham a liar,” Carlson began. (RELATED: Trump Lawyer Reads Directly From Mueller Report To Push Back Against Brian Williams)

“Just another fact-check from a guy suspended for lying. Nice guy, but please get some self-awareness. That wasn’t the only time something like that happened though today, an hour later they cut away again to say that Barr was a big fat liar, too,” he continued.

The Hill’s Joe Concha agreed, “Conforming to the hive, Tucker. Look, I’m a Jersey guy, he grew up down the New Jersey river, he is a nice guy by all accounts. The environment that he is in, he realizes that he has to give his audience comfort food, what they want to hear at this point.”

“And the scary part about that is that he could just pivot into being what he’s become now, which is completely and totally partisan,” Concha concluded. “Remember, he was the anchor, the NBC Nightly News for many many years. And he’s gone the full Dan Rather I would say. These guys were people that you trusted because there they are, CBS and NBC giving you the news and now instead they’ve gone completely and totally from one side to the left and they’ve destroyed legacies in the process, unfortunately.”

The segment came after Williams cut into both Graham’s and Barr’s testimony during Wednesday’s hearings to say that they were lying about the facts in the Mueller report.

“We’re reluctant to do this, we rarely do,” Williams said about interrupting the broadcast of the hearing. “The chairman of the Judiciary Committee just said that Mueller found there was no collusion. That is not correct.”

Graham asserted that Mueller reported no collusion occurred between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia, something Williams apparently disagreed with.

It wasn’t the first time Williams called Barr’s statements into question. In April, the MSNBC host called Barr “Baghdad Bill Barr,” a reference to an Iraqi Defense Minister known as “Baghdad Bob” who misstated Iraqi victories under Saddam Hussein.

“It’s already been mentioned around here — it would hearken back to a conflict decades ago — we would not be surprised if some headline writer somewhere came up somewhere with ‘Baghdad Bill Barr’ for what we saw today,” Williams claimed at the time.

Williams spent a great deal of time defending himself against claims of lying about his past when it came to light there were several stories that he reported on that were either complete fakes or greatly embellished.

Alec Baldwin Declares Lindsey Graham ‘Trump’s Fluffer’

NEW YORK, NY - JUNE 25: Robert De Niro, Alec Baldwin and Jane Krakowski attend "Spike's One Night Only: Alec Baldwin" at The Apollo Theater on June 25, 2017 in New York City. (Photo by Mike Coppola/Getty Images for Spike)

By Justin Caruso

Hollywood actor and Saturday Night Live faux-President Trump Alec Baldwin smeared Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), calling him President Donald Trump’s “fluffer” in a social media post Wednesday.

“How is it that God -fearing Americans from South Carolina believe that @LindseyGrahamSC , who is nothing more than Trump’s fluffer, passes as worthy of a seat in the US Senate?” Alec Baldwin said.

CAP

According to Dictionary.com. “A fluffer is — or at least is said to be — someone on a pornographic film set that keeps a male performer’s penis erect in between scenes.”

Sen. Graham was the target of much scorn Wednesday after he defended President Trump from allegations of collusion with Russia.

“I appreciate very much what Mr. Mueller did for the country. I have read most of the report. For me, it is over,” Graham said.

The South Carolina Republican also read aloud texts from former FBI agent Peter Strzok that showed hatred for the president, including one text where Strzok called Trump a “fucking idiot.”

MSNBC personality Nicolle Wallace accused Graham of being a “human shield for Donald Trump and it would appear, William Barr.”

Hollywood stars and establishment media pundits used homophobic slurs against Lindsey Graham after his performance during the Brett Kavanaugh hearing as well.

Rosie O’Donnell called him a “closeted idiot” and Kathy Griffin referred to him as “Miss.”

“Look at Miss Lindsey Graham trying to be all tough! What?Does Putin have a picture of Lindsay fucking a donkey? #KanavaughHearings,” Griffin said.

CAP

WATCH: Lindsey Graham Shuts Down Mazie Hirono For ‘Slandering’ Bill Barr

By Ryan Saavedra

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC) interrupted and shut down Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) after she “slandered” Attorney General Bill Barr during his Wednesday hearing.

“Do you think it’s okay for a president to offer pardons to people who don’t testify against him, to threaten the family of someone who does?” Hirono asked. “Is that okay?”

“When did he offer a pardon to somebody?” Barr asked.

“I think you know what I’m talking about,” Hirono arrogantly said. “Please, Mr. Attorney General. Give us some credit for knowing what the hell’s going on around here.”

“Not really,” Graham interrupted. “To this line of questioning. Listen, you slandered this man!”

“Mr. Chairman, I am done!” Hirono whiffed.

“You slandered this man from top to bottom!” Graham continued. “If you want more of this, you’re not going to get it. If you want to ask some questions, you can.”

“You certainly have your opinion,” Hirono smarted off. “And I have mine.”

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑