Not So Sharp Shooter.

Not So Sharp Shooter – Is Hillary Qualified to be POTUS given her carelessness and recklessness with classified information.


(courtesy of AF Branco at Comically Incorrect)

Hillary On Drugs.

Hillary-on-drugs-ROHHillary Clinton has a new ad out designed, we suspect, to show her as a tough person on drug companies.

In the ad Hillary reads a letter from a woman at a rally who says she is taking a drug that in the 1980’s cost “approximately $180 for 10 shots.” Clinton then goes on to say the writer now says the same drug is now “14,700 for the same 10 shots.”

There are a few cut shots showing the company, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, in dark grey tones as if to highlight how evil the company is.

Hillary then says “I’m going after them. This is predatory pricing and I am going to make sure this is stopped!”

Hooray for the courageous Hillary Clinton!

However, like many political ads, there is much more to the ad and the story.

What piqued our interest in this at first was the timeline. If the woman was using the drug in the 1980’s, the patent for the drug has long since expired. Even assuming the most persuasive case of the drug being patented in 1989, patents for drugs run 20 years. That means the drug would have been “out of patent” and available for any drug maker to manufacture the drug without paying royalties at the very latest since 2009. Notice that we are talking about patents on the drug – not “exclusivity” in which a drug manufacturer can claim it and only can manufacture the drug. Exclusivity rights for new drugs run for 5 years.

Indeed, there is a generic version of the drug which is called D.H.E. 45.

After the dust up, Valeant released a statement saying in part:

D.H.E. 45 is an injectable treatment for migraines that is primarily administered in the hospital setting.

The product was acquired in 2005, and a generic version of D.H.E. 45 has been available since 2003.

It is clear that the woman is choosing to take the brand name version of the drug rather than a generic version which may be lower in cost. In a strange twist, Valeant contacted the woman in question:

Hillary And Donald – Two Birds Of The Same Feather.

Political-Math-ROHHillary Clinton and Donald Trump have the same attitude when it comes to free speech and the First Amendment: they hate it.

Donald Trump has a history of suing people who say things about him with which he disagrees. He sued biographer Tim O’Brien based on Trump’s claim that O’Brien incorrectly stated Trump’s net worth. He threatened to sue the company who employed a market analyst who predicted Trump’s Taj Mahal Casino in Atlantic City would fail. He has made threats concerning the owners of the Chicago Cubs who have chosen to support other candidates. He sued a architecture critic of the Chicago Tribune who correctly predicted that Trump would never build the highest building in the US because of structural and economic issues. The critic was right, but that didn’t stop Trump from suing the Tribune and the critic to shut him up.

This past Friday, Trump said he would change the law and by extension the First Amendment on articles the press writes.

One of the things I’m going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we’re certainly leading. I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said.

Under current law, largely determined at the state instead of federal level, public persons, such as politicians, can win a suit against a media organization only if the person can prove that the publication published information with actual malice, knowing it to be wholly incorrect, as well as in cases of reckless disregard. The case that set this precedent — New York Times Co. v. Sullivan — was decided by the Supreme Court in 1964.

“You see, with me, they’re not protected, because I’m not like other people but I’m not taking money. I’m not taking their money,” Trump said on Friday. “We’re going to open up libel laws, and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”

A “hit piece” is probably defined by Trump as “one that does not acknowledge his greatness.” (At least in his mind.)

Last year Hillary Clinton and her staff used ropes to cordon off Clinton as she walked in a parade in New Hampshire.

After that debacle comes this:

Judge Allows Lawsuit Against Clinton Emails To Go Forward.

Clinton-Servers-Blackberry-ROHA US Judge has ruled that discovery may go forward in a lawsuit looking at the emails and servers of Hillary Clinton.

A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request for information about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.

The basis of the lawsuit is that documents have shown the State Department knew about Clinton’s unsecured and personal email server and did nothing about it. The servers are clearly illegal and Judicial Watch made the claim that the servers were established to allow Clinton and the State Department to violate Freedom of Information laws. After all, the in response to any FOIA request, the State Department could simply say “we don’t have any record of that.”

“There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?” Sullivan said, “This case is about the public’s right to know.”

In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan said that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy created “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.

Judicial Watch, for its part, was justifiably happy with the outcome of their motion to the court:

Hillary Wasn’t Lying! Bosnia gunfire footage discovered…

This is being passed around on some milblogs one of our contributors visit. It’s old, but still great satire.

Hillary On Wall Street.

Once again from the mind and pens of A.F. Branco at Comically Incorrect.


The back story:

Hillary Clinton spent an hour talking to CNN’s Anderson Cooper and a handful of New Hampshire voters in a town hall on Wednesday night. For 59 minutes of it, she was excellent — empathetic, engaged and decidedly human. But, then there was that other minute — really just four words — that Clinton is likely to be haunted by for some time to come.

“That’s what they offered,” Clinton said in response to Cooper’s question about her decision to accept $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs in the period between serving as secretary of state and her decision to formally enter the 2016 presidential race.

More On Hillary’s Emails – And This One Is A Criminal Smoking Gun.

As a bit of history, the State Department tried to slow play the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails and especially those emails that came from her illegal and unsecure server. After a judge ruled the State Department had to release them, the emails have been coming out.

Clinton has claimed that there were no classified information or emails on her server, a claim that has been shown to be false over 1000 times. The latest email release shows an additional 66 emails that were classified that passed through the Clinton server.

What has now caught the attention of the blogosphere is the release of an email exchange in 2011. It is reproduced below:

(click on image for larger version)

(click on image for larger version)

To set the players, “Sullivan, Jacob J” was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff while at the State Department. “H” is Hillary Clinton.

It appears that Clinton is asking for “talking points” for an unknown event or meeting. Sullivan says they cannot send the talking points via a secure fax.

This is where things get interesting.

“I Dunna Tink Dat Word Means What You Tink It Means.”

One of the great lines from the movie “The Princess Bride” is when Indigo Montoya responds to Vizzini:

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “average” or doesn’t understand basic math. Maybe a little of both.

“This school district and these schools throughout Iowa are doing a better than average job,” Clinton told the crowd. “Now, I wouldn’t keep any school open that wasn’t doing a better than average job. If a school’s not doing a good job, then you know it may not be good for the kids.

“But when you have a district that’s doing a good job it seems kind of counterproductive to impose financial burdens on it.”

It appears Hillary doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “average.”

« Previous Entries Next Entries »