Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Thursday, February 27, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 711)

[brid video=”18210″ player=”1929″ title=”Fiorina Trump And Carson Afraid Of Debating Sound A Lot Like Politicians”]

Former Hewlitt-Packard Carly Fiorina said on The Kelly File Thursday night that Donald Trump and Ben Carson are afraid of debating and acting like establishment politicians by complaining about the length of the upcoming CNBC debate.

“I think apparently they’re worried about answering questions for three hours,” Fiorina said. “For heaven sakes, we have ten candidates on the stage. I don’t think three hours is a long time. And I think the American people actually like these debates,.”

“Maybe the establishments wants fewer debates. But I think the American people really like them. And I think we ought to stand and answer as many questions as we can. They also apparently ask for prepared statements,” Fiorina said. “You know, prepared statements are what politicians do. So, honestly, here are two outsiders supposedly. Donald Trump and Ben Carson they sound a lot like politicians tonight to me.”

Carly Fiorina said on The Kelly File

CNN-Democratic-debate-Las-Vegas

Democrat presidential candidates arrive on the stage at the debate sponsored by CNN and Facebook at Wynn Las Vegas on October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

A couple of days ago, I (sort of) applauded Senator Bernie Sanders. Not for his views, which are based on primitive redistributionism, but because he challenged Republicans to state whether they support capitalism.

And I think it would be very revealing to see which GOPers were willing to openly embrace free markets, hopefully for both moral and economic reasons.

But not let’s look at this issue from another perspective. Why do some folks on the left oppose capitalism?

I suppose there are several answers. Old-fashioned communists and socialists actually thought capitalism was inferior and they wanted the government to directly plan the economy, run the factories, and allocate resources.

Most leftists today admit that central planning doesn’t work and you need a market-based price system, so their arguments against capitalism usually are based on two other factors.

  1. The rich somehow exploit the poor and wind up with too big a slice of the economic pie. The solution is high tax rates and redistribution.
  2. Capitalism is inherently unstable, causing painful recessions. The solution is to have lots of regulations to somehow prevent bad things.

I think both those arguments are misguided since the first is based on the inaccurate presumption that the economy is a fixed pie and the second overlooks the fact that government intervention almost always deserves the blame for downturns and panics.

Today, though, I want to focus on a new argument against capitalism. Some guy named Matt Bruenig recently argued in the Washington Post that capitalism is coercive. I’m not joking. This wasn’t parody. He really is serious that a system based on voluntary exchange is anti-freedom.

Here are some excerpts from his column.

Capitalism is a coercive economic system that creates persistent patterns of economic deprivation. …it is well established that capitalism is fundamentally built upon threats of force. …When the physical resources necessary for production are privately held in the hands of very few, as in the United States, the majority of the population is forced to submit itself to well-financed employers in order to live.

And how does he propose to deal with the supposedly coercive nature of capitalism?

Simple, the government should give everybody money so they don’t have to work

To secure freedom and prosperity for all, it may ultimately be necessary to supplement the welfare state with a universal basic income — a program that would provide all citizens with a basic level of financial support, regardless of whether they’re employed. …no amount of labor regulation can ever undo the fact that workers are confronted daily with the choice between obeying a supervisor or losing all their income. The only way to break the coercion at the core of the employment relationship is to give people the genuine ability to say no to their employers. And the only way to make that feasible is to guarantee that working-age adults, at least, have some way to support themselves whether they work or not.

Wow.

I don’t suppose Mr. Bruenig has thought through what happens if too many people decide to stop working so they can live off the “universal basic income.”

Call me crazy, but I suspect the number of people riding in the wagon would exponentially expand while an ever-growing share people pulling the wagon would decide to “go Galt.”

Of course, some leftists are smart enough to realize that somebody has to produce before the government can redistribute.

But anybody capable of writing these sentences obviously isn’t moored to reality.

True freedom requires freedom from destitution and freedom from the demands of the employer. Capitalism ensures neither, but a universal basic income, if successful, could provide both.

While he’s at it, why doesn’t he wave his magic wand so every little boy can play major league baseball and every little girl can have a pet unicorn?

I’ve previously expressed skepticism about the notion of a government-guaranteed income. The fact that Mr. Bruenig thinks it’s a good idea is confirmation that this idea should be rejected.

P.S. I have a Moocher Hall of Fame to celebrate disreputable deadbeats and a Bureaucrat Hall of Fame to highlight overpaid and underworked civil servants. Maybe it’s time to have some sort of Hall of Fame for statists who say make really bizarre arguments. Mr. Bruenig could join Mr. Murphy, Ms. vanden Heuvel, and Mr. Yglesias as charter members.

Most politicians on the left today admit

Hillary-Clinton-Bernie-Sanders

Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders, left, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, right. (Photo: AP)

People initially were in disbelief that a card-carrying socialist such as Bernie Sanders could make a competitive bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, but I trust it’s now obvious how wrong they were.

Pointing to the rise of Donald Trump and Ben Carson in the Republican race, some say Sanders is doing well because this is a year of the outsiders. But to suggest there is commonality between Democratic outsiders and Republican ones is lazy thinking.

Republican outsiders are thriving because Republicans are frustrated with the status quo — the politically correct culture and President Obama’s ongoing crusade to fundamentally transform America. Their dissatisfaction is so strong that it has fueled actual outsiders — those who have no prior experience in office — not just those who disagree on policy with the Washington insiders. Sanders, as a United States senator who strongly supports the Obama agenda, is not an outsider in either sense.

Others credit Sanders’ success to Hillary Clinton’s myriad scandals, from Benghazi to emails. In any other year, they say, Sanders wouldn’t stand a chance. But if Sanders is simply a fallback option, how does he draw such large, enthusiastic crowds? If the Democratic base regarded Sanders as merely an alternative to Clinton, his crowds would be as anemic as hers.

The open secret is that Sanders is more of a Democratic insider than the liberal media admit. He is popular because socialism resonates with much of the Democratic Party’s base, which has moved so far left that Sanders is anything but an anomaly — except that unlike his rivals, he cops to his socialism. Sanders’ confessed socialism doesn’t hurt him. If he were younger, more charismatic and less bizarre, he’d do even better.

Whether or not the Democratic Party owns up to it, it is as close to socialism as it can get except for the label, which it will carefully avoid for as long as it perceives it still needs moderates to win national elections.

Let’s not quibble over whether Democrats are technically socialist, because that would miss the point that the party’s center of gravity is far left — no matter what name you attach to it. If you insist, though, I’ll note that political science and economics textbooks and English dictionaries define socialism as a system in which the government has control over the major means of production, distribution and exchange. Much, if not all, of Democratic domestic policy falls within that definition.

Democrats no longer support the American idea. In fact, they actively oppose it, and it’s getting worse by the day. My long-held fantasy has been that someday rank-and-file Democrats will realize that their party has left them and make their exit.

If there was any doubt the Democratic Party has moved far left, its presidential debate removed it. The candidates couldn’t distance themselves enough from “capitalism,” and none of them expressly denied being a socialist, though I doubt Jim Webb is. Some, including Clinton, pretended it is “out-of-control capitalism” to which they object, but those are just meaningless words.

They fell all over themselves competing to prove they would offer more government freebies than the others. They proposed free college education, free health care (even for immigrants here illegally), mandatory paid family leave (free to employees, but not to the businesses paying it), major hikes in the minimum wage, open borders, increases in existing entitlements and more punitive taxes on the “wealthy.”

These reckless demagogues uttered nary a word about the national debt, the impending insolvency of Social Security and Medicare or how they would pay for these freebies.
None mentioned work ethic, economic growth, small businesses as the backbone of our economy or personal responsibility on any level. Lord knows they didn’t mention, much less champion, our founding ideal of liberty.

Call it socialism or not; Democrats are all about consolidating government power and then using it — often unconstitutionally — to force political and economic outcomes.
If Democrats would admit they are socialists, they might have to explain away thousands of years of history that points to the consistent failure of socialistic systems instead of hiding behind their allegedly good intentions.

They routinely disparage conservatives as uncompassionate and portray themselves as superior and caring, but they have no answer to the hard reality that all their grandiose plans diminish prosperity and individual liberty across the board. They say they care about the poor, but their policies — Obama’s policies — rob people of their prosperity and their human dignity. That, my friends, is not compassion.

Modern Democrats never own up to their failures, as witnessed by their astonishing denial that our current malaise is a direct result of Obama’s policies. They still pretend they’re the party out of power and outraged that the middle class is suffering. They still blame George W. Bush.

It’s not surprising that Bernie Sanders is popular in the Democratic Party, in which he is right at home. The only mystery is why more rank-and-file members of that party haven’t awakened to its extremism and bid it farewell.

People initially were in disbelief that a

mid-atlantic-manufacturing-aluminium-raw-materials-reuters

A worker in the mid-Atlantic manufacturing sector works with raw aluminum materials. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve said the Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey showed continued contraction in the mid-atlantic region in October. The reading came in well below Wall Street’s expectation for a rise to -1, and labor market indicators continued to weaken.

Readings above 0 point to expansion, while those below indicate contraction.

The indicator for general activity remained negative, while the new orders and shipments indexes turned negative this month. The diffusion index for current activity remained in contraction for the second consecutive month, although it edged slightly higher from -6.0 in September to -4.5. The indexes for current new orders and shipments showed “notable deterioration this month,” according to the Philadelphia Fed, as both indexes fell below zero and marked the first negative reading for the new orders index since May 2013.

Indicators for delivery times and unfilled orders were in negative territory, as well, with 30% of the firms reported a decline in inventories during the month of October and the current inventories index fell by 15 points.

The survey’s indicators for labor market conditions suggest slightly weaker employment. While the percentage of firms reporting declines in employment (15%) was slightly greater than the percentage reporting increases (13%), the employment index tanked nearly 12 points, down from 10.2 to -1.7. Firms also reported overall declines in average work hours in October, and the workweek index was negative for the first time since May.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve released the report soon after the New York Federal Reserve’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey for the region showed the sector in the region stuck in contraction territory, declining for a third consecutive month. The gauge of manufacturing activity in the region clocked in at -11.36, up from -14.67 in September.

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve said the Manufacturing

consumer prices gas

Consumer Price Index (CPI) reporting on gas prices from the Labor Department.

The Labor Department said on Thursday the Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed posted its biggest drop in eight months in September as the cost of gasoline fell. The report comes after the Producer Price Index (PPI) released Wednesday showed prices falling 0.5% and ahead of the Federal Reserve’s decision on the timing and trajectory of the first interest rate hike since the Great Recession.

The CPI fell 0.2 percent last month after falling another 0.1 percent in August, though economists polled by Reuters had forecast the CPI falling 0.2% for the month and 0.1% from a year ago. In the 12 months through September, the CPI was unchanged for the first time in four months after rising 0.2% in August.

The so-called core CPI, which excludes food and energy costs, two of the biggest financial day-to-day burdens on Americans’ wallets, rose 0.2% after inching up 0.1% in August.

Inflation has consistently run below the Federal’s 2% target as the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) remains divided on when to tighten monetary policy. Most suspect the argument for a hike in the Fed’s short-term interest rate may have been hurt by an abysmal slowdown in job growth in the last two months, non-existent manufacturing growth and weakening economic activity fueled by a relatively strong dollar. Lower oil prices and a weakening global economy have both helped to contribute to these worries.

In the 12 months through September the so-called core CPI increased 1.9%, which the largest increase since July 2014 after rising 1.8% in August. Still, the Fed tracks the personal consumption expenditures price index, excluding food and energy, which is running well below the core CPI. Last month, gasoline prices fell a whopping 9.0%, the biggest drop since January and follows a decline of 4.1% in August. Food prices gained 0.4%, the largest increase since May 2014 and follows a 0.2% gain the prior month. The rental index increased 0.4%, after rising 0.3% in August.

The Labor Department said on Thursday the

jobs-employment-line-reuters

Unemployed Americans wait in line for to fill out applications for jobless benefits. (Photo: Reuters)

The firing rate, or weekly jobless claims measured by the number of Americans filing for first-time unemployment benefits fell by 7,000 for the week ended Oct. 10. The the Labor Department said Thursday their proxy for layoffs across the U.S., decreased to a seasonally adjusted 255,000, matching the lowest level in more than 40 years.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected 270,000 new claims last week. Claims for the prior week were revised down by 1,000 to 262,000 and the Labor Department said there were no special factors affecting the latest weekly data.

The four-week moving average of claims–which is widely considered to be a better gauge as it irons-out week-to-week volatility–fell by 2,250 to 265,000. That was the lowest average reading since December 1973, but labor force participation is also at its lowest level since October 1977.

Claims levels have generally been falling since 2009, though fewer-and-fewer long-term unemployed are eligible to receive benefits. The latest data suggests employers are reluctant to lay off workers, which indicates stronger hiring. However, in recent months job gains have abysmal–the U.S. economy added only 142,000 jobs last month–and the fewest number of men ever were participating in the labor market last month.

Thursday’s report showed the number of continuing unemployment benefits, claims drawn by workers for more than a week, fell by 50,000 to 2,158,000 in the week ended Oct. 3. That was the lowest level of continuing claims since November 2000.

The firing rate, or weekly jobless claims

manufacturing-reuters

Surveys gauging manufacturing growth or contraction in Empire State. (REUTERS)

The New York Federal Reserve’s Empire State Manufacturing Survey for the region remained stuck in contraction territory in October, declining for a third consecutive month. The gauge of manufacturing activity in the region clocked in at -11.36, up from -14.67 in September.

Wall Street had anticipated a rise to -8, though also still an indication of contraction. Readings above 0 point to expansion, while those below indicate contraction.

The general business conditions index inched up by 3 to -11.4, but it marks the third straight month of readings below -10 and the first such occurrence since 2009. While 21% of survey respondents reported that conditions had improved over the month, 33% reported that conditions had worsened. Further, the new orders index continued to decline, dropping 6 points to -18.9, while the shipments index also fell six points to -13.6. The unfilled orders index dropped 7 points to -15.1. Again delivery times clocked in shorter this month, as the delivery time index fell by 5 points to -11.3. The inventories index rose eleven points to -7.6, indicating that inventory levels declined, though at a somewhat slower pace than in September.

The prices paid index remained relatively flat, though fell to 0.9, its lowest level since 2009. The prices received index edged down by 3 points to -8.5, which is indicative of a decline in selling prices. Labor market conditions in the manufacturing sector continue to worsened. The index for number of employees fell for a fourth consecutive month, falling 2 points to -8.5 in a clear and ominous sign that employment levels were even lower. The average workweek index remained negative at -7.6, pointing to shorter workweeks.

The closely-watched report comes ahead of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s index of regional mid-Atlantic manufacturing activity, or the Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey. It, too, contracted and tanked last month to -6, down from 8.3 the month prior. The Chicago Business Barometer, the Institute for Supply Management-Chicago’s gauge of Midwest manufacturing activity, fell into contraction at 48.7, down from 54.4 the month prior.

The New York Federal Reserve’s Empire State

Citigroup-headquarters-NYC

The headquarters of Citigroup in New York. (Photo: Timothy A. Clary/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

Citigroup (NYSE:C) reported a 51% rise in profits during the third quarter, far outpacing estimates as operating, legal and repositioning costs fell more than expected. Analysts on average had estimated earnings of $1.28 per share, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. It was not immediately clear if the numbers were comparable.

The nation’s third biggest U.S. bank by assets said net income rose to $4.29 billion, or $1.35 per share, in the third quarter from $2.84 billion, or 88 cents per share, a year earlier. Last year, the bank had taken a near $2 billion charge for litigation and restructuring costs.

“The quarter had more than its fair share of volatility and our results speak to the resilience of our franchise globally. And despite revenue headwinds, we once again proved our ability to manage our risk, our expenses and our capital,” said Michael Corbat, Chief Executive Officer of Citigroup. “We remain on track to deliver our full-year efficiency and ROA targets. I feel good about the quality and consistency of our earnings over the course of this year, as we have continued to make solid progress against our core priorities.”

Adjusting for certain accounting items, Citigroup’s net profit rose 35.7 percent to $4.16 billion, or $1.31 per share. However, revenue fell about 5 percent to $18.69 billion, which followed statements that revenue at their units trading equities, bonds, currencies and commodities were expected to fall about 5% in the third quarter.

“Citi Holdings was profitable again this quarter and its assets declined 20% year-over-year to $110 billion. Consistent utilization of our deferred tax assets helped us generate $14 billion of regulatory capital,” Mr. Corbat noted. “So far this year we have returned over $4 billion of that capital to our shareholders in the form of share buybacks and common stock dividends.”

The report follows earnings report from Bank of America Corp. (NYSE:BAC) and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (NYSE:JPM), the latter of which posted revenue declines that missed expectations.

“Our tangible book value surpassed $60 per share and our Common Equity Tier One Capital ratio increased to 11.6% on a fully-implemented basis,” Corbat concluded. “Challenging environments have become the norm, but the work we have done to make our firm simpler, smaller, safer and stronger has given us a resilient and sturdy platform from which to operate.”

Citigroup (NYSE:C) reported a 51% rise in

CNN-Democratic-debate-Las-Vegas

Democrat presidential candidates arrive on the stage at the debate sponsored by CNN and Facebook at Wynn Las Vegas on October 13, 2015 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

Who “won” the Democratic debate? The Democratic Party won. All the presidential candidates, from the most flamboyant to the most contained, talked seriously about issues, even straying from liberal orthodoxy.

Hillary Clinton’s upbeat morning-in-America approach contrasted with Bernie Sanders’ eve-of-destruction — I mean revolution. But both stood grounded in reality, with special kudos to America’s favorite socialist for some refreshing breaths of nuance on polarizing issues.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — not a crazy Republican but one who often talked crazy — once called Democrats “the enemy of normal Americans.” Who’s looking normal now?

Surely not Republican Carly Fiorina, condemning abortion with a gruesome description of a fabricated video she never saw. Not Ben Carson or Rand Paul, who, despite being doctors, didn’t strenuously counter Donald Trump’s contention that vaccinations put children at risk. Trump doesn’t seem normal even when he’s right.

The consensus said that Clinton walked off with it. She did, but it was an ensemble performance. Sanders struck the high note by mocking the overblown controversy over Clinton’s use of private emails as secretary of state.

“The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails,” Sanders said. “Let’s talk about the real issues facing America.”

And the Democrats generally dived under the surface of today’s public debates. Clinton chided Sanders for his skepticism on some gun control measures, but Sanders had it exactly right.

He explained that his state, Vermont, has a rural hunting culture that doesn’t see guns as always evil. Sanders backed a ban on assault rifles but opposed letting gun shops be sued if a gun they sell legally is used in a crime. Common sense all around.

The immigration discussion offered a welcome balance between the need to deal humanely with people here illegally and the need for controls. Sanders defended his attack on an immigration plan that would have admitted huge numbers of “guest workers” to compete with low-wage Americans. If only more Democrats would talk that way.

Former Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia spoke up for struggling poor whites, another welcome reference in a party that too often frames policy in racial or ethnic terms. And thank you, Jim Webb, for saying, “No country is a country without defining its borders.”

All in all, though, it was Clinton’s show. Responding to Sanders’ declaration of love for Scandinavian socialism, Clinton firmly replied: “We are the United States of America. And it’s our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn’t run amok and doesn’t cause the kind of inequities that we’re seeing in our economic system.”

The consensus erred in naming Webb the evening’s “loser.” The former Navy secretary did great in his seething, quiet way. He steered the debate away from cloying political correctness. This very smart son of Appalachia would make a great vice presidential candidate.

Few noticed that Webb provided the wittiest remark of the evening. That came when he dryly informed Sanders that he doesn’t “think the revolution’s going to come.”
The most unintentionally funny line was from CNN moderator Anderson Cooper.

“In all candor,” Cooper said to Clinton, “you and your husband are part of the 1 percent. How can you credibly represent the views of the middle class?”

To borrow from the MasterCard ad, being questioned about losing credibility on matters of class because you’ve become rich: $2.03. Being so questioned by the son of a Vanderbilt: priceless.

Clinton is clearly moving on from intraparty debate to general election mode. The other candidates seemed to genuinely respect that pivot and gave her space.

How gratifying to hear a leading presidential candidate sound like a normal American and not get punished for it.

Who "won" the Democratic debate? The Democrats

Hillary-Clinton-Iowa-9-22-2015

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during a community forum on health care, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2015, at Moulton Elementary School in Des Moines, Iowa. (PHOTO: CHARLIE NEIBERGALL/AP)

Why is Hillary Clinton so unhappy? According to her, when she and her husband left the White House, they were dead broke. Yet they left with a truckload of valuable furniture, dinnerware and flatware that was the property of the federal government, for which they were never prosecuted.

They also left with contracts for lectures and speeches worth between $20 million and $30 million in the ensuing years. And they have done quite well financially. According to The Washington Post, between the time Bill Clinton left office in 2001 and January 2013, when Hillary Clinton stepped down as secretary of state, Bill alone made $104.9 million for speeches, and Hillary’s standard speaking fee is $200,000 a pop.

Why is Hillary so unhappy? We can start with the fact that she is her own worst enemy. No Republican dirty trickster could have put her into the legal and political mess into which she has put herself. Her surreptitious refusal to follow federal law and her congenital lying about it have caught up with her.

By using her own computer server instead of the government’s in the four years of her tenure as secretary of state, she knowingly compromised the national security of the United States. She did this by receiving and sending at least 400 emails that contained information that under federal law was confidential, secret or top-secret, which is a felony.

The failure to preserve data of that nature is a federal crime, whether it is stamped with an official secret denomination, whether one has read it and perceived its secret nature, and whether it has fallen into enemy hands or not. Gen. David Petraeus was convicted of retaining the printed versions of secret and top-secret data in a desk drawer in his guarded home. It was alleged — but not proved — that he shared this data with one of his subordinates. Even though the subordinate had a security clearance, Petraeus was prosecuted.

In Hillary’s case, the data have fallen into enemy hands, as one of the folks to whom she regularly sent her emails — in utter and reckless disregard for the secrets they contained — was her political adviser Sid Blumenthal, an employee of the Clinton Foundation at the time. Blumenthal’s insecure server was hacked by Romanian intelligence agents, who were convicted and sentenced to prison.

Why is Hillary so unhappy? When the State Department was sued by public interest groups seeking copies of Hillary’s emails — lawsuits permitted and even encouraged by the Freedom of Information Act, a federal statute that presumes that documents and emails in federal custody are available for the public to see — the State Department answered the litigation truthfully by telling a federal judge that it had none of Hillary’s emails.

Then The New York Times blew the lid off this by revealing her exclusive use of her private server, and the same federal judge angrily ordered the State Department to get its hands on Hillary’s emails. Then she revealed that she had erased 30,000 of the emails, which she said were personal. After that, she surrendered the printed versions of another 30,000 emails, which she characterized as governmental.

When the judge — who had been appointed to the federal bench by Hillary’s husband — looked at what the State Department had turned over, it did not seem complete to him; crucial months were missing. So he ordered Hillary to swear under oath — “under penalty of perjury,” as he put it — that she had surrendered all governmental emails in her possession. She did so swear in a document now made public.

Then the House Benghazi Committee subpoenaed Blumenthal’s emails, and its investigators discovered governmental emails Hillary sent to him that she had not surrendered to the State Department, even though she had sworn that she had.

Why is Hillary so unhappy? She is unhappy because she realizes that she needs a criminal defense lawyer to deal with the FBI investigation of her while she is running for president. The FBI is looking to see whether she failed to protect national security secrets (espionage), whether she destroyed government emails (obstruction of justice) and whether she lied under oath about all this to a federal judge (perjury).

She is unhappy because she has repeatedly characterized her own behavior as “allowed at the time,” which flies in the face of the law and is simply incredible. It was allowed only in the depths of her self-justifying, narcissistic mind.

She is unhappy because the FBI has discovered that it can retrieve the emails she thought she destroyed and that her server was directly connected to the Internet, making it and the secrets she stored and transferred on it vulnerable to attack. She is unhappy because she was hacked — we do not know whether successfully or not — by the Russians, the Chinese and even the Israelis.

She is unhappy because she got caught in a scheme of her own creation. I suspect she is about to become even less happy when evidence of why she did this comes to light. I suspect that evidence will soon be made known that will demonstrate conclusively that she and her aides were part of a criminal conspiracy to enrich the Clinton Foundation by unlawful means — including moving levers of governmental power — and thus enrich her and her husband. And she is unhappy because the FBI will soon be asked to investigate that.

She is unhappy because only Democratic die-hards believe her. She is unhappy because voters will not elect an unhappy person as president — and she knows that.

She is unhappy because she realizes that

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial