Hillary Clinton: I’m Facing ‘Enormous Pressure’ to Enter 2020 Race — I Want to ‘Retire’ Trump

Only fools believe anything this woman says.
Breitbart  "On Tuesday, former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told BBC Radio 5 Live she was under “enormous pressure” to consider a 2020 White House run.

"When asked about her future in politics, Clinton said, “I feel a sense of responsibility partly because you know my name was on the ballot, I got more votes, but ended up losing to the current incumbent in the White House who I think is really undermining our democracy in very fundamental ways. And I want to retire him.”

"When asked if she is absolutely ruling out a 2020 run, Clinton said, “I, as I say never, never, never say never. I will certainly tell you. I’m under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it. But as of this moment, sitting here in this studio talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans.”

Thomas Lifson: Tulsi Gabbard campaign accuses Hillary Clinton of 'defamation'

. . . "Gabbard has a political future that could last decades, and she knows that the stain of the implication she is a "Russian asset" will never go away.  She is proud of her National Guard service overseas in combat zones.  And honor is a concept that means more in our armed services than in practically any other realm of modern life.  Gabbard's regard for her personal honor may be incomprehensible to many in modern America.

Gabbard and her organization must realize that Hillary Clinton does not handle apologies well.  In fact, I cannot recall a single actual apology from her in the nearly three decades I have followed her.  The closest I can recall is her referring to "shoulda, coulda, woulda" with regard to some mistake she made.  

The language her campaign is using in a letter to Clinton suggests an eye toward proving "actual malice," the legal standard that must be met for a public figure to succeed in a lawsuit.  Foreknowledge of the falseness of a claim along with animus toward the object of defamation must be proven.  Via Fox News:" . . .

Babylon Bee: Hillary Clinton Says She Is Being Urged To Run By Many, Many, Many Voices In Her Head  . . . "'I'm under enormous pressure from many, many, many voices in my head to think about it," she said. She went on, elaborating on all the voices that echo inside her head all day long. "There's Bob---he's nice. And Carl, he's a swell guy, very supportive. Then there's this voice that sounds like Christopher Walken. He's kind of a jerk sometimes, but even he's on board with me running again."
"Pressed for a solid figure, she said there's "at least a few thousand" of these voices that want her to run, and she promised to think about it in order to appease the voices. Clinton also said the voices have told her she's done a great job as president in her first term and they "can't wait" to see how much she can accomplish for the country should she be elected a second time." . . .

Breaking: Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Lawsuit To Proceed, Major Blow To Gun Manufacturers

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in March that Remington can be sued because of the way the AR-15-style Bushmaster rifle was marketed. The families’ lawsuit contends that Remington glorified the gun in advertising aimed at young people, including in violent video games.The Sandy Hook killer, Adam Lanza, was 20 when he shot and killed his mother at home, then went to the Newtown school and gunned down first-graders and educators. Lanza then killed himself.

Young Conservative  "Tuesday, The Supreme Court refused to protect a major firearms manufacturer from possible liability in the horrific Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. The terrible event left 26 students and teachers dead in Newtown, Connecticut.
"The justices’ newly found decision will allow the lawsuit filed by parents of Sandy Hook Elementary victims to move forward with the allegation of Remington Arms Co. marketing the rifle used in the mass shooting.

"The lawsuit will continue at the state law." . . .

After this mass murder I posted the following in the Tunnel Wall:
"Nothing has hit me as hard as the Sandy Hook children's massacre after which I wrote this:"
"Seeking an effective argument FOR gun control (Posted here after the terrible Sandy Hook massacre) " 

The Tunnel Wall; Tuesday, December 18, 2012 Here, two respected writers discuss the case against taking away individual firearms from Americans. Yes, it is true that if guns did not exist everywhere in this nation those little children in Sandy Hook would be living right now and I only wish that were the case. But it is not and there are violent people out there in their thousands and they are armed; willing and lusting to watch innocent people die in bunches by their hands. How, exactly do you gun-control advocates plan to remove those weapons from their blood-thirsty hands?I will honestly look for a reasoned argument FOR gun control that contains effective means for keeping us safe from those who carry weapons illegally and are willing to do us harm. Cartoons showing crazed, wild-eyed gun owners don't wash.As yet, I have seen only politically correct, emotional responses to the issue that have no value other than simply making a politician look as if they are doing something. TD

Later in 2018 I posted this in the Tunnel Wall:

"Let's talk about gun control, shall we? "

After Sandy Hook, I hated guns and my emotions cried for them to all disappear; the image of terrified children being, well, you all know. But we know, too, that peaceful people and shop owners - the Korean store owners during the LA riots protecting their businesses comes to mind - will be the first to lose their protection. Those with children serving as policemen would dread the thought of them entering dangerous areas of cities like Chicago to try taking those guns away.This nation has a myriad of evil people with guns who have no qualms about killing others because of the color of their skin or their clothes, their politics, their shoes, or, well, just because it's a certain day of the week.I cannot help but blame the liberal left (redundant, perhaps) for creating a society  where we need weapons to protect ourselves and knowing now they want to take away that protection.Tell me again why the coach / security guard in the school at Parkland had no gun. The Tunnel Dweller

The Schiff witch trials

"Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime"; "Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent."

Andrew Thomas blogs at Dark Angel Politics

Schiff is running an autocratic, inexplicable "inquiry" reminiscent of Kafka's The Trial.

Schiff is like Scent of a Woman's Trask: mean, without respect for any individual in his way.  He is like the tormentors of Josef K. in Kafka's book; he has no compassion, no concern for due process.  Like Trask the hardened headmaster, Schiff is a truly terrible example of what a member of Congress should be.  He is, as we have come to see, malevolent, on a mission to sabotage the Trump presidency by any means available to him, even if immoral and unconstitutional.  He is the worst sort of human being: a man without a conscience.  The question of the day is, why are the Republicans standing still for this? 

Victor Davis Hanson: Ten Reasons Why Impeachment Is Illegitimate

We are witnessing constitutional government dissipating before our very eyes.

 "There are at least ten reasons why the Democratic impeachment “inquiry” is a euphemism for an ongoing coup attempt.

"1) Impeachment 24/7. The impeachment “inquiry,” supposedly prompted by the president’s Ukrainian call, is simply the most recent in a long series of “coups” that sought to overturn the 2016 election and thus preclude a 2020 reelection bid. The pattern gives away the game." . . .

. . . "All of these efforts reflect a desperate effort both to reverse the 2016 election and to preclude a 2020 reelection effort, and, barring that, to drive down the Trump polls to the point of making him delegitimized. A week after Trump was elected, the Wall Street Journal reported that intelligence agencies were withholding information from their president. “Anonymous,” in a September 5, 2018, New York Times op-ed, bragged of an ongoing “resistance” of high-ranking government officials seeking to stonewall Trump. As soon as Trump was inaugurated, Washington lawyer and former Obama official Rosa Brooks was publicly raising the possibility of a military coup to remove him. Retired admiral William McRaven recently called for Trump to be gone — “the sooner, the better.' ” . . .