Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Suggests Biden Nominate Hillary for SCOTUS

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Suggests Biden Nominate Hillary for SCOTUS

Sure, waste a SCOTUS pick on a 73-year-old woman who has turned into a conspiracy nut.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tteLMfFDCb4

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough thinks Joe Biden should waste a SCOTUS nomination on 73-year-old failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton if he wins next month.

Thing is, Biden doesn’t even have to wait to nominate Hillary. He can do it when they “reform the court.”

(I will never ever get tired of writing failed Democratic presidential candidate)

I admit I rolled my eyes at the House Judiciary GOP tweet, but then again, Hillary cannot stop whining and crying about how they stole the 2016 election from her.

So no one can complain that we poke fun of her. The woman is such a sore loser.

On a New York Times podcast she said:

“I was the candidate that they basically stole an election from,” Clinton said Monday on the New York Times podcast “Sway.”

“I was the candidate who won nearly three million more votes. So no matter how they cut it, it wasn’t the kind of win that people said, ‘OK, it wasn’t my candidate, but OK.’ This election is still front and center in people’s psyches. And people fight about it every day online, because there is a deep sense of unfairness and just dismissiveness toward his victory, and he knows it,” Clinton said.

“I absolutely thought I was going to win. So did everybody else. I mean, I know people look back now and say, well, it wasn’t — we were going to win. We were absolutely going to win.”

Clinton also claimed that she was “born” for the presidency, explaining to podcast host Kara Swisher.

I was born for that. I mean, that’s why I knew I’d be a good president. I was ready for crises and emergencies, and I would have done what you see these women leaders doing. You listen to the science. You bring in people in an open, inclusive way. You communicate constantly, you make the case by explaining why what you’re doing is in the long-term interests, not only of health but also, of the economy. Yeah, I have no doubt in my mind at all that I would have stepped up to that crisis.

Who else is laughing?! I love the fact that she has to live with the fact that Donald Trump beat her in 2016.

Hillary also said people performed “academic studies” to find out why they didn’t vote for her and “it was shocking what they believed.” She called it “disinformation,” but come on, lady. It’s simple:

WE. DO. NOT. LIKE. YOU. You’re a horrible person. Seek help.

(Can you tell I hate Hillary? I do not like politicians, but Hillary is something else.)

Anyway.

I doubt Joe was being sarcastic. They accuse Trump of packing the court, but they literally want to pack the court.

But since they demonized the phrase “court-packing” they now say, “expand the court” or “reform the court.”

They didn’t get their way so make drastic changes that will bite them in the butt in the future. *cough* Harry Reid *cough*

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | October 27, 2020 at 3:04 pm

Let’s claim they work for Breibart and that will the end to both of them.

Election Interference

Google Suppresses Breitbart in Search – Even with Exact Headline

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital. | October 27, 2020 at 3:09 pm

    “A few days after the 2016 election, at an internal meeting later leaked to Breitbart News, top Google executives, including Sundar Pichai, Sergey Brin, and Kent Walker, lamented President Trump’s victory, comparing Trump voters to “extremists” and discussing their desire to make Trump’s election and the populist movement a “blip” in history.

    True to their word, four years later, Google is deliberately working to interfere with the reelection of Trump in 2020.

    There are several ways in which Google is interfering in the 2020 election, but this article will focus primarily on one of them: political search bias.

    Google Has Been Purging Breitbart Content from Search Results Since the 2016 Election

    Search visibility is a key industry measure of how findable a publisher’s content is in Google search. New data shows that Google has suppressed Breitbart’s search visibility by 99.7 percent since 2016.

    On April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top ten search positions (i.e., on the first page of Google search results) for 355 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top ten search positions for only one search term. And, on April 4, 2016, Breitbart ranked in the top 100 search positions for 16,820 key search terms; but now, as of July 20, 2020, Breitbart ranks in the top 100 search positions for only 55 search terms……

    Breibart

    Which is why my primary search engine is DuckDuckGo.
    .

2smartforlibs | October 27, 2020 at 3:06 pm

Yea NO! The left was saying ACB didn’t have enough experience. Beside loser has to win and there is no proof that going to happen.

The Friendly Grizzly | October 27, 2020 at 3:09 pm

That picture of Hillarity brings to mind that sudden burst of loud laughter Blance Norton, played by Bea Benedaret, wth let go on the Burns& Allen show.

One not someone who finished at the bottom or near the bottom of the class –
Hillary
Harris
Biden

I’m sure that with a little bit of effort we can find Judge Crater.

Yeah, because nothing says you want to “depoliticize” the court better than appointing a bitter partisan hag like Hillary Clinton.

Yeah, I have no doubt in my mind at all that I would have stepped up to that crisis.

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Sorry, who?

Scarborough must be smoking his socks. He has completely lost it now. That’s what hanging around with Mika Bryxkgjhfzxy will do for you.

“They accuse Trump of packing the court, but they literally want to pack the court. But since they demonized the phrase “court-packing” they now say, “expand the court” or “reform the court.”

All consonant with the Democrat playbook to torture language to obscure the truth.

But anyone can play that.

I propose that when Trump wins handily, all these people be invited by official custodians to participate in a course of aperture-based re-education.

Joe Scarborough thinks Joe Biden should waste a SCOTUS nomination on 73-year-old failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton if he wins next month.

If he was planning any such thing, that might explain why Joe wants to keep his list of nominees secret.

    DaveGinOly in reply to tom_swift. | October 28, 2020 at 11:27 am

    If you’re a progressive, it’s a viable idea. Where else could Biden position Hillary that would provide the potential for doing so much damage?

OleDirtyBarrister | October 27, 2020 at 4:01 pm

When Trump wins with 316 plus electoral votes, he should public ask liberals if they are ready to proceed with expansion of SCOTUS to 13 justices and whether they want an activist of his choosing that views the constitution as a living, breathing documents

“Hillary also said people performed “academic studies” to find out why they didn’t vote for her and “it was shocking what they believed.””

Without realizing it, she just admitted why there has been an onslaught of MSM disinformation and fake fact checking for 4 years.

    Observer in reply to healthguyfsu. | October 27, 2020 at 5:24 pm

    They probably believed “shocking” things like the fact that as Secretary of State, Clinton set up her own insecure e-mail server and used it to transmit classified and even top-secret information over, and every hacker and foreign nation’s spies on the planet had easy access to it. China was getting copies of every email sent over Hillary’s insecure server, in real time. And Hillary set up this illegal server so that she could conduct her dirty pay-for-play business, which funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to her crooked Clinton Foundation “charity,” without having to comply with pesky government records requirements and/or FOIA requests. Hillary Clinton compromised U.S. national security, exposed multiple sensitive intelligence operations, got undercover operatives aiding U.S. intelligence agencies killed, and more, and all so she could hide her own massive corruption.

    And the most shocking thing about this sorry episode is that it was all true.

This is a classic case of a minor Party hack (Scarborough) running his big mouth on TV and proposing an idea none of the Communist Party officials want to see happen.

Wondering how Hillary could rake in cash as a SC justice, not that she couldn’t, Just I can’t imagine how.

On November 4, Morning Joe will become Mourning Joe.

HRC has not practiced law for over 30 years and I would guess has surrendered her license to avoid disciplinary proceedings. She has as far as I can recall no judicial experience. Her expertise is limited to making evidence disappear for years on end. There are those that would suggest she had a hand in making witnesses disappear (forever). In addition, she is not going to attend hearings and field overnight calls from prisons on the brink of executions at the 3:00 a.m. hour. Being a justice on the SCOTUS is a significant, professional, taxing job-all things HRG has shunned all her life. Scarborough must be suffering a brain aneurysm to suggest she (1) could be approved by even a D controlled Senate or (2) would accept the responsibility if she was approved. I can hear Kamala’s signature laugh in the background.

    Milhouse in reply to JRD47. | October 28, 2020 at 6:41 pm

    Surrendered her license to avoid disciplinary proceedings? For what? She’s never been officially accused of anything. You must have her confused with her husband, who did give up his license for five years.

    She may be on inactive status, if Arkansas has such a thing.

BierceAmbrose | October 27, 2020 at 4:36 pm

“I was the candidate who won nearly three million more votes. So no matter how they cut it, it wasn’t the kind of win that people said, ‘OK, it wasn’t my candidate, but OK.’”

For bog’s sake. Of course they want to get rid of the electoral college. The point is it’s an impediment to a local majority over here, using the feds to impose their preferences on people like them over there.

If you’re Hillary, who knows better than those deplorables about everthing, that’s a bug. For the rest of us it’s a feature. (One might anticipate The Screaming D’s being pleased with the friction placed on The Orange Crush by checks n balances, rule of law, multiple chambers, and the rest … but that would require thought.)

There’s a marvelous piece about electoral college and awarding by states may be 20-ish years ago in What The Atlantic Once Was. A Smart Guy(tm) got to wondering what that did, n developed a whole additional nich of applied math.

Net, it’s the same reason tennis has games, sets n matches, or football has “possessions”, n scores 7 or 3 points for some things. Every serve is interesting because every serve can matter, even when there’s a lead, this serve may change all of that.

The popular vote isn’t relevant in the same way, and for the same reason that rushing yards isn’t relevant… and it has the same result. The Screaming D’s hate it *because* it makes eveyr state relevant. They have their pile of peeps, so shut up. You wanna see what that’s like, look at any state dominated by a disjoint Urban population: Washington, Oregon, NY, arguably CA.

” … becuase there is a deep sense of unfairness and just dismissiveness toward his victory, and he knows it,”

“Sense of” is not an argument, no matter how deep. Some people think it’s “unfair” that after winning the popular vote (by not all that much, one time) they can’t go do anydamnthing they want.

It’s “unfair” that they don’t get to impose themselves on everyone else. It’s “unfair” that the election protocol is set up to throttle that.

Maybe people you call “deplorables” suspect you don’t have their interests at heart, and vote that way.

About being “born” for something – to me it suggests the belief in predestination – which in turn suggests belief in an intelligent and omnipotent being who presides over humanity and occasionally creates and ordains someone to accomplish a higher purpose.

Isn’t it funny such a being could do all that in creating Hillary to save us from Covid19 and then bungle the election thereby leaving her destiny unfulfilled?

She is such a bonehead.

“Two-time failed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton…”

Fixed it for you.

Thanks,
Ted

    Dimsdale in reply to Ted Bell. | October 27, 2020 at 11:47 pm

    When you come right down to it, failed Secretary of State and Senator too. Can you think of any of the “heroine of Tuzla’s” accomplishments other than riding her husband’s coattails into multiple offices?

I have literally never understood the slavish devotion of some Democrats to Hillary Clinton.

Others I get. Bill Clinton, Obama, I all understand. Bubba particularly I understand, he had amazing charisma, and he knew how to read people and schmooze people to convince them to do what he wanted. Obama significantly less so, but he was still capable of great speeches.

But Hillary? She has all the charisma of a dead rat. She’s a HORRIBLE person, and literally everybody that has to interact with her personally away from cameras knows what a horrendous person she is. NOBODY that works for her likes her personally. She’s also a total incompetent who has not only accomplished nothing for the party, but she actively screwed up Universal Health Care in the 90’s that seemed like it was a sure thing by pissing off literally EVERYBODY involved, and she did NOTHING as Secretary of State. Even Kerry at least screwed Israel by engaging in his farce of a ‘peace process’, but Hillary simply did nothing.

And yet the party Democrats STILL act like she’s some transcendent talent. I simply don’t understand it.

She’d probably drop dead the next day.

I really, really hate to break this to Scarbrain, but a fundamental premise of his suggestion is… how shall I put this politely?… Nuggin’ futz.

Grant’sGhost | October 27, 2020 at 6:13 pm

she’d have to give up the bottle… so I don’t know how interested she’d be!

None of the supreme court justices in my lifetime have been appointed at 74 years old. that would be an unwise choice.

I like this new rule; Democrats nominate people in their 70’s and Republicans nominate people in their 50’s.

I do not like thee Dr. Fell,
the reason for I can not tell,
but this I know and know full well,
I do not like thee Dr. Fell.

SeekingRationalThought | October 27, 2020 at 10:17 pm

Looks like Joe is ready to join the other idiots, losers, bozos and failures at the Lincoln Project. Lincoln, by the way, must be rolling in his tomb.

‘I love the fact that she has to live with the fact that Donald Trump beat her sorry ass like a rented mule in 2016.’

FIFY.

Did she get disbarred like her husband and Obama? I would love to hear her explanation of why she was fired from the Watergate investigation.

    Milhouse in reply to Ghost Rider. | October 28, 2020 at 7:11 pm

    Neither her husband nor 0bama was ever disbarred. Her husband surrendered his license for 5 years to avoid it. 0bama has never been in any sort of trouble with the bar, and can reactivate his license any time he wants to.

    And she was not fired from the Watergate investigation. The person who claimed he fired her is a fraud; he was never her boss, so he couldn’t have done so.

Joe Scarborough is just “Toobin” his audience

That would be like a prostitute working her way up to be a pimp.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend