Trump refers to alleged Bill Clinton sexual indiscretions as 'rape'

| Fox News

www.foxnews.com

 

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used the word "rape" Wednesday evening to describe alleged sexual misconduct by former President Bill Clinton. 

Trump made the comment during an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity. The real estate mogul was answering questions about an unflattering story published this past weekend by The New York Times involving his relationships with women when he turned his attention to Bill Clinton.

"By the way, you know, it's not like the worst things, OK," Trump said. "You look at what Clinton's gone through with all of the problems and all of the things that he's done."

Hannity went on to question whether the newspaper would interview women including Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. All three have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct.

"In one case, it's about exposure. In another case, it's about groping and fondling and touching against a woman's will," Hannity said.

"And rape," Trump responded.

2016 Election Headquarters

The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics. See Latest Coverage →

"And rape," Hannity repeated.

In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said Trump was "doing what he does best, attacking when he feels wounded and dragging the American people through the mud for his own gain. If that’s the kind of campaign he wants to run that’s his choice."

Allegations of womanizing, extramarital affairs and abuse have trickled out over the course of Bill Clinton's political life, including what his campaign referred to as "bimbo eruptions" when he first ran for president in 1992.

More allegations of misbehavior emerged after investigators in 1997 started looking into Clinton's sexual encounters with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was impeached over the Lewinsky affair.

In 1998, he agreed to an $850,000 settlement with Jones, an Arkansas state worker, who had accused Clinton of exposing himself and making indecent propositions when Clinton was the state's governor. The settlement included no apology or admission of guilt.

Broaddrick, a nurse, in 1999 claimed she was raped by then-state Attorney General Clinton at a Little Rock hotel in 1978. Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, claimed Clinton fondled her when she met privately with him at the White House in 1993 to seek a job.

Clinton denied the allegations by Broaddrick and Willey.

Trump has made clear in recent weeks that he intends to make Bill Clinton's sexual history a key campaign issue, describing him at rallies and on social media as "the worst abuser of women in the history of politics" and labeling his wife an "enabler."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

COMMENTS

Reporter Behind New York Times Trump Attack Has a History of Failed Hatchet Jobs

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by DUSTIN STOCKTON17 May 2016261

Michael Barbaro’s hit piece on Donald Trump in the New York Times Saturday started unraveling almost as soon as it was published. Even CNN anchors were astonished that Barbaro had no answer to charges of distortion from his story’s lead source. But for Barbaro this is just another embarrassing example of a failed attempt to take down a Republican.

Barbaro’s article — “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private” — includes several widely reported incidents that have been shown to be questionable, but the story really started to unravel when the woman featured most prominently in the article, Rowanne Brewer Lane, started publicly calling out the authors for misleading readers by twisting her words to paint Trump in a negative light.

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

After a brief romance with Trump decades ago, Rowanne Brewer Lane spent hours on the phone and did a photo shoot for the New York Times because she wanted to let people know “how well Trump treats women.” Instead, hours of interviews were whittled down to suggest that Donald Trump had somehow “debased” Brewer Lane, a claim she doesn’t support.

For someone who works for the New York Times and was educated at Yale, Michael Barbaro’s “reporting” routinely lacks even enough pretense of objectivity to be defended by people who share his politics, which is pretty amazing when you consider what New York Times and other mainstream media reporters are able to get away with.

Last June, Barbaro took aim at Florida Senator Marco Rubio, claiming that he had “splurged” on a “luxury speedboat” as part of a larger story about Rubio’s mismanagement of his personal finances. Even Politico ran an article debunking that whopper titled, “Rubio’s ‘Luxury Speedboat’ Is A Fishing Boat.” The Daily Show With Jon Stewart mocked the story at the time:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

advertisement

For Barbaro it’s not the first time he’s beencalled out by those on the left for a weak hatchet job on a Republican Presidential candidate. In 2012, Ari Melber—a columnist for The Nation, a hard leftwing magazine—blasted an article Barbaro had written about Mitt Romney during a segment on MSNBC. Speaking of Barbaro’s hit piece about Romney back then, Melber said: “I want to call bull on both the substance of the story and the way the New York Timesdealt with it.”

A quick review of Barbaro’s Twitter account shows he’s hardly impartial when it comes to Donald Trump:

Mission accomplished, Mr. Trump. CNN doing an entire segment on Taco Bowl right now, 24 hours after it was posted. Sigh.

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) May 6, 2016

Just to reiterate: amid violence at rallies, GOP frontrunner wants to pay legal bills of man who threw the punch, not the one hurt by it.

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)March 13, 2016

Entire Trump campaign, arguably, is journalistic lesson about over-coverage of elites, their views, the weight they carry.

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb) May 5, 2016

Unexpected challenge in GOP debate prep: finding stand-in who can convincingly channel Trump’s rage (and his hair) http://t.co/f6X1SUieph

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)August 2, 2015

Just in time for debate! Trump controlled companies sought visas for 1,100 foreign workers. Protecting US jobs is he? http://t.co/nACYuszKPA

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)August 1, 2015

Protectionist Trump apparently couldn’t find an American “banquet manager” or “golf superintendent” so looked abroad: http://t.co/nACYuszKPA

— Michael Barbaro (@mikiebarb)August 1, 2015

 

Dustin Stockton is a political reporter for Breitbart News, a community liaison for Gun Owners of America, and a political strategist. Follow him on Twitter @DustinStockton orFacebook

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Government, Big Journalism, Ari Melber, Michael Barbaro,New York Times, Rowanne Brewer Lane

Two Presidents in the White House?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.google.com

By Sally Bedell Smith Updated Dec. 11, 2007 12:01 a.m. ET

For many years, one of Bill and Hillary Clinton's closest friends, TV producer Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, has been fond of saying that when the Clintons "are dead and gone, each of them is going to be buried next to a president of the United States."

It is an idea that the Clintons began talking about decades ago. Back in 1974, Bill Clinton told his friend Diane Kincaid that Hillary "could be president someday." During his own presidential campaign in 1992, he said in an interview, "Eight years of Hillary Clinton? Why not?"

We now face the extraordinary possibility of having two presidents in the White House who are married to each other. That prospect is something that never occurred to our nation's founders, and is only now beginning to catch the attention of the public, with Hillary Clinton's position as front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Imagine being asked to serve as her running mate, knowing that her husband would be far more influential than any vice president. What would a potential secretary of state face now that Sen. Clinton has already said she would use her husband as ambassador to the world? As a former president, would Mr. Clinton read the daily intelligence briefing? His unofficial portfolio would potentially overlap with everyone in authority, without his being subject to Senate confirmation.

The federal anti-nepotism law enacted in December 1967 -- partly as a reaction to John F. Kennedy's appointment of his brother Robert as attorney general -- prohibits any official in the three branches of government, including the president, from appointing a relative to a job over which that official has authority or control. This means Mr. Clinton could not be a cabinet secretary or an ambassador, or White House chief of staff. His role would be necessarily ambiguous. At a time when voters are crying out for more openness in government, such an arrangement raises questions about transparency and accountability.

While Mr. Clinton's return to the West Wing wouldn't directly violate the 22nd Amendment -- designed to limit a president to two terms in office -- it has significant implications because of the unusual nature of Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage, which is such a deeply entwined political duopoly that "it has always been hard to distinguish who played what role," according to their longtime friend Mickey Kantor.

Many voters, especially Democrats, would welcome Mr. Clinton's experience as a great asset to his wife's administration. But given the Clintons' long history of close consultation, their partnership could end up distorting the way the executive branch is supposed to function -- regardless of the talents each of them might bring to the White House.

So far the Clinton campaign has downplayed the question of Mr. Clinton's role in the administration if his wife were elected -- joking that he might be "first laddie" or "first spouse" or "first gentleman." Campaign videos showing him munching on cheeseburgers and running on a treadmill have served to further de-emphasize the prospect of his power in the White House. Mr. Clinton has said he would only sit in on cabinet meetings "if asked" to discuss "specific issues," and he has declared his intention to give his wife advice "privately most of the time."

But this is exactly the kind of hidden-hand role that caused confusion and resentment when Hillary Clinton was advising her husband in his administration. As first lady, she inhibited staff members and created what one top Clinton administration official called a "world of shadows on the wall."

Bill Clinton's mere presence in the West Wing would be intimidating and complicating. Given his unrivaled experience and huge personality, it's safe to assume that he would be no Denis Thatcher, walking two steps behind. Bill Clinton is "always evangelizing for the church of Bill," said Arkansas journalist Max Brantley. And even if the former president were to continue operating out of his office in New York City and home in Chappaqua, New York, the Clintons' ingrained habits would mean a continuing collaboration, albeit at a distance.

The concept of two presidents in the White House poses one of the biggest conundrums of this political season, and is an issue that can only grow during the general election campaign if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

Ms. Smith is the author of "For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years," published this year by Random House.

COMMENTS

Roger Kimball to Never Trumpers: ‘Clinton Cash’ Shows Hillary Is Even Worse Than You Think

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by BREITBART NEWS16 May 201696

Roger Kimball writes in PJMediaabout the new documentary film “Clinton Cash” based on Peter Schweizer’s bestselling book by the same name, which premiered during the Cannes film festival this week. Read Kimball’s review below (emphasis in the original).

In his column for PJ Media, my friend Ron Radosh, the distinguished historian, outlines the case for believing that Hillary Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” compared to Donald Trump. Ron says that he is “fully aware” of Hillary’s liabilities, yet concludes: “On foreign policy, there is more hope that [she] will take a course that asserts American leadership abroad.”

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Ron is not alone in asserting this. Several prominent conservatives have, with varying degrees of hesitation (not to say repugnance), embraced Hillary Clinton as the less bad alternative to Donald Trump.

A new film, which will debut Monday at Cannes, may force them to reconsider that judgment.

Clinton Cash, the documentary film which I watched in previews yesterday, is based on the best-selling exposé of the same name by Peter Schweizer, the tireless investigative journalist who has devoted himself to confronting political corruption and crony capitalism regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrators. Produced by Breitbart’s Stephen K. Bannon and directed by M. A. Taylor, Clinton Cash is crisply narrated by Schweizer and provides a relentless and devastating portrait of brazen financial venality in exchange for political favors.

[…]

Read the book. But then watch the documentary, coming to a television screen near you much sooner than the announced release date of July 24.

advertisement

It gives a detailed analysis of how the Clintons hypocritically mouth progressive pieties while selling out those values to multinational corporate interests on the one hand, and some of world’s creepiest political actors on the other.

Clinton Cash should outrage not only conservatives but also supporters of Hillary Clinton’s Democratic opponent Bernie Sanders. Despite its thriller-like scenarios, this brilliant documentary is not a partisan melodrama. It is a public service.

This should be watched by anyone who cares about restoring basic trust and accountability to our political life. The sad truth is, I conclude, Hillary Clinton is ostentatiously unfit to be President of the United States. We do not, pace my friend Ron Radosh, possess instruments delicate enough to determine that she is the “lesser of two evils.”

What we do know, however — what this documentary demonstrates beyond cavil — is that Bill and Hillary Clinton are as corrupt as they are hypocritical, lining their pockets by selling out the values they pretend to cherish. It makes for a repellent spectacle.

Read the rest here.

Watch the Clinton Cash trailer below:

advertisement

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Cronyism, Hillary Clinton, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Clinton Cash, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Foundation foreign donations scandal,Hillary Clinton, Peter Schweizer, Roger Kimball

Milwaukee school officials say budget item listing $471G for Black Lives Matter a misunderstanding

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

By Perry Chiaramonte

Published May 16, 2016

FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

Milwaukee school officials say they are not paying Black Lives Matter $471,073, even though the 2017 budget lists the item. (AP)

An item in the Milwaukee Public Schools' proposed budget listing $471,073 for Black Lives Matter has critics fuming, but district officials said Monday it is all a misunderstanding.

ADVERTISEMENT

Although the budget draft lists the controversial activist group, whose members have called for attacks on police officers, as the recipient of the funds, school officials said much of the money would go to hiring and training three social studies teachers.

“No funding is going to any Black Lives Matter organization,” Tony Tagliavia, a spokesman for Milwaukee Public Schools told FoxNews.com in a statement. "The specific expenditures, which are also outlined in the budget proposal, are for three social studies teachers and staff development for other employees.”

The funding would also pay for a “cultural studies curriculum” which aims to “[ensure] that culturally responsive teaching practices are in place at all schools, enhancing the district vision for student participation in a wide range of after-school activities..."

 

Related Image

Nearly $500,000 of taxpayer dollars in Milwaukee will be going towards the creation of a “cultural studies curriculum” based on the tenets of the Black Lives Matter movement which will pay for not only the salaries of three teachers dedicated to the program, but for training as well.

When asked what role Black Lives Matter would play in the training and curriculum development, school officials said the budget is funding both staff and curriculum that is being developed by staff in conjunction with an advisory council that includes community, parents, educators, staff and students. 

"The focus is on racial disparities and inequities in education that must be addressed," the Milwaukee School District official said to FoxNews.com in a written statement. 

Kyle Olson, founder of Wisconsin-based schools watchdog Education Action Group, said the Milwaukee School District has a reputation for wasteful spending and poor performance. If Black Lives Matter is involved in training and curriculum, taxpayers and parents alike should be worried, he said.

Milwaukee, WI Profile | FindTheHome

“All I’ve seen from ‘Black Lives Matter’ is a fomentation of hatred against the police, increased racial division and making excuses for the combination of poor parenting and failed policies from big city liberal politicians,” said Olson.

The story was initially reported by local radio station WISN 1130 AM, which cited the line item in the proposed 2017 school budget listing $471,073 for “Black Lives Matter.”

Perry Chiaramonte is a reporter for FoxNews.com. Follow him on Twitter at@perrych

Hillary Clinton keeps losing. So how come she's winning?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.latimes.com

Bernie Sanders is on a roll. He's won the last two Democratic primaries and stands a good chance Tuesday of adding Oregon and perhaps Kentucky to his pile of victories.

Yet Hillary Clinton is likely to continue her seemingly unstoppable march to the party's presidential nomination.

How can that be?

It's not a conspiracy, as some angry Sanders backers suggest, a result of dark magic or a wrinkle in the time-space continuum. Rather, it's the rules that Democrats play by -- rules that now work to Clinton's advantage, even as they thwarted her candidacy eight years ago, when she lost a nominating fight to then-Sen. Barack Obama.

It takes 2,383 delegates to win the nomination at the party's national convention this summer in Philadelphia. Entering Tuesday's contests, former Secretary of State Clinton has 2,240 delegates to for Vermont Sen. Sanders' 1,473.

Clinton also leads Sanders in that category. She has received more than 12.5 million votes, compared with 9.4 million for Sanders. That's a lead of more than 3 million votes, according to calculations by the website Real Clear Politics.

It is theoretically possible, just as it is theoretically possible to drive from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less than two hours --provided you go 200 mph the entire way.

Sanders must win close to 90% of remaining delegates to overtake Clinton. It's mathematically possible, but not realistic, given that Democrats award delegates on a proportional, rather than winner-take-all, basis. So even when a candidate -- in this case Clinton -- loses a contest, she won't walk away empty-handed.

Take last week's West Virginia primary. Sanders clobbered Clinton, 51% to 36%. But when delegates were divvied up, Sanders won 18 and Clinton 11. Adding in superdelegates, the results were much closer: Sanders walked away with 19 delegates and Clinton claimed 18. That means Sanders' landslide victory cut into Clinton's overall delegate lead by precisely one.

They're not faster than a speeding bullet or able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Superdelegates are those who automatically get a seat at the Philadelphia convention and have the liberty to vote for whomever they please. The overwhelming majority are supporting Clinton.

Superdelegates are elected officials and other party leaders and activists. They include sitting Democratic governors and members of Congress, past presidents and vice presidents and former chairmen of the Democratic National Committee.

Because Democrats have two competing impulses. On the one hand, they fancy their party a model of inclusiveness and egalitarianism. On the other, they want to win elections.

After the party was torn asunder by the Vietnam War -- some Democrats believing Vice President Hubert Humphrey had been forced down their throats as the 1968 nominee -- leaders changed the nominating system to give more say to voters at the grass-roots level. But after the landslide defeat of George McGovern in 1972 and Jimmy Carter in 1980, the feeling was some recalibration was needed, leavening the will of the people with the presumed wisdom of political insiders. Hence the birth of superdelegates.

About 15% of Democrats are free to back whomever they wish. Clinton leads Sanders among superdelegates 524 to 40.

No. She would still be ahead, 1,716 to1,433.

Yes, they were. They helped push Obama past Clinton to win the Democratic nomination, even though he barely topped her in the overall popular vote and held a much narrower lead in the delegate count than Clinton enjoys today over Sanders.

That's something a lot of Clinton supporters are asking. Sanders continues to draw big crowds, and every vote he receives and delegate he wins bolsters his case for a strong presence at the convention, including greater sway over the platform drafted as the statement of party principles heading into the fall campaign. Besides, he gets a lot more attention as an active candidate for the president than he would otherwise. Heard much from Martin O'Malley lately?

Sorry.

He maintains that if he keeps up his winning streak -- topping it off with a big victory in California on June 7 -- he will have so much momentum that superdelegates will shift to him en masse, giving him the nomination at a contested convention in Philadelphia.

You never know. But Clinton finished out 2008 on a hot streak similar to Sanders', taking five of the last eight contests, and that didn't change the minds of most superdelegates. Even though the Clinton-Obama contest was far closer, and the race much rougher than the current Democratic nominating fight, she soon abandoned her candidacy and delivered a ringing endorsement at the summer convention in Denver.

COMMENTS

Exclusive — Donald J. Trump to San Francisco: Sanctuary Cities ‘Unacceptable,’ A ‘Disaster’ Creating ‘Safe-Haven for Criminals’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

The Associated Press

by MATTHEW BOYLE16 May 2016NEW YORK CITY, New York1,643

NEW YORK CITY, New York — Donald J. Trump, the billionaire businessman and presumptive 2016 GOP presidential nominee, told Breitbart News that he is shocked that San Francisco’s local government would entertain the possibility of expanding its sanctuary status for illegal aliens after what happened to Kate Steinle last year.

“Sanctuary cities are a disaster,” Trump said when questioned. “They’re a safe-haven for criminals and people that should not have a safe-haven in many cases. It’s just unacceptable. We’ll be looking at sanctuary cities very hard.”

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Trump’s comments came in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News in his office on the 26th floor of Trump Tower in Midtown, Manhattan last week. They come in response to efforts by far left progressive organizations in San Francisco to expand that city’s sanctuary city laws.

As Breitbart News’ Lee Stranahan reported from the scene last week at a city meeting, San Francisco city officials are aiming to expand their sanctuary city protections for illegal aliens there. As Stranahan was recording the event via video, several illegal alien sympathizers successfully sought to have him illegally removed by law enforcement from the public meeting.

When informed of what happened to Stranahan at the meeting during this interview, Trump said it was “unbelievable.”

In subsequent reporting, Stranahan has exposed the fact that the groups pushing this expansion of sanctuary city policies are actually radical progressives who want to hand several U.S. states in the American southwest back to Mexico. In other words, they want to—as some signs and hats have stated—literally “Make America Mexico Again.”

Trump has repeatedly honed in on sanctuary cities—and specifically the Steinle murder—throughout the course of his campaign.

advertisement

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors expects to vote on expanding sanctuary cities next Tuesday.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race, Big Government,Immigration, 2016 presidential campaign,Donald Trump, kate steinle, san francisco,Sanctuary Cities