Top 10 Busted: Claims By Crooked Hillary

Synopsis: Sitting here on the eve of 2016 Presidential election, I’m thankful that it’s almost over. After an especially harsh campaign by both sides, I can’t imagine American politics ever being the same. Unfortunately, instead of picking from the cream of the crop, we get to scrape the bottom of the barrel. Regardless of whether Crooked Hillary or Deplorable Donald wins the upcoming election, the next POTUS will have the highest unfavorable rating of any president-elect in history. While not excited about either candidate, I’ll take crass over corrupt every time. 


According to everyone involved with the NFL, sports fans have been distracted this fall by the presidential election. Based on that commentary, I digress hoping to curtail my own declining ratings. Actually, my visitor count has been up bigly (or big league). Still, I’ll take any help I can get.

At this point, I have written over 100 posts/articles regarding the “B” word. For any new visitors, the “B” word stands for “Bust.” Usually, I emphasize numbers and stringent analysis to make conclusions. However, I need to evolve and expand into new territory. As such, I’ll explore a different taboo subject: politics.

Who would have thought that Trump would take down 2 Bushes during the 2016 Presidential Election?

In early October 2016, NBC released an 11-year old audio tape of Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump bragging about his sexual exploits. For the first time in a campaign full of appalling statements, Trump finally apologized for his indefensible comments. Perhaps most importantly, he needed to apologize for offending his wife. 

Unable to stomach the media’s feigned outrage, I posted the following tweet.

While disgusted by Trump’s comments, my daughter seemed to be more disgusted by my foray into politics. In particular, she found my tweet “cringe-worthy” and “embarrassing.” At the same time, she mentioned that “UR” stands for “your” while “U R” stands for “you’re.” Go figure, now she knows the difference! Fortunately, this article has more than 140 characters so I know she won’t read it.

[Since I wrote this article, my daughter got accepted to Stanford University. My wife and I both graduated from The Farm almost 25 years ago. Still, our daughter earned acceptance on her own merits. She inspires me with her intelligence and work ethic. Again, I know she won’t read her dad’s “pathetic” blog so I won’t embarrass her.

As an independent thinker, my daughter would have voted for Trump if she could have. Huh? That’s right, Crooked Hillary didn’t inspire women as much as she thought she did. Many of us want a female POTUS, just not the one who ran in 2008 and 2016.]


Ever since announcing his candidacy, Trump has planted the seed that the election isn’t legit. First, he has claimed that the media have shown a clear bias against him. Second, he has expressed a concern about potential voter irregularity. Perhaps his claims provide a convenient excuse in case he loses. Then again, he might have a legitimate argument.

In response to Trump’s accusations, certain pundits have argued that only 35 instances of voter fraud have been identified out of over 800 million votes cast since 2000. As a numbers guy, I would have believed a fraud rate of one in a thousand (i.e. 800,000 fraudulent votes). However, believing a voter-fraud rate of .000004% would be naive (or stupid).

For those of you who might not understand a percentage that low, let me help. Specifically, you’d have a better chance winning Powerball at least three times in the upcoming year if you believe those odds. Said differently, they’re unrealistic. Okay, they’re impossible. 

Admittedly, proving voter irregularity would be hard to do. However, proving media bias should be a slam dunk. Of note, WikiLeaks has given us all of the necessary ammunition. Specifically, we know that Crooked Hillary received at least one question in advance of an actual debate.

The exposed leak? None other than former CNN contributor and current DNC Chairperson Donna Brazile. 

OH DONNA . . .
Richie Valens never thought you could be so wrong.

Guess who else thinks the system might be rigged? None other than Crooked Hillary’s husband, Slick Willy. During a “closed-door” fundraiser for his wife, the former president said,

[People] are sick and tired of working their heart out and never getting a pay raise. And so they think the political system is rigged against them, which it is to some extent.

What better way to raise money from wealthy donors than telling them that the system unfairly favors them. Leave it to Bill to tell them exactly what they want to. Specially, money = influence. Hey Hillary, that’s called “pay for play.”


During the 2016 Democratic convention, Michele Obama made headlines with the statement, “Our motto is: when they go low, we go high.” Relative to the other major figures in the current Presidential election, FLOTUS might be the most likable. Still, she can’t avoid being labeled a hypocrite.

When her husband campaigned against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, Mrs. Obama crowed, “If you can’t run your own house, you certainly can’t run the White House.” Clearly, the future First Lady had referenced Hillary’s inability to control Bill’s philandering. However, in an effort to do damage control, Michelle later claimed that she simply referenced her own homemaking skills. Really?!?

Crooked Hillary: flotus-at-dnc-convention-2016
Listen to the clip and determine for yourself if Obama’s explanation can be believed.

Feeling the pressure of a close race, Clinton and her supporters have completely abandoned any intention to remain above the fray. In the last week, both she and President Obama have accused Trump of embracing the KKK because of the racist organization’s endorsement of the Republican nominee. Furthermore, almost every Hillary commercial in the last few days has been completely negative about Trump. Perhaps the Democrat’s motto should be, “When they go low, we go lower.”

By no means has Trump avoided the mud during the campaign. At least, he hasn’t been a hypocrite about it.


Since I already addressed the WikiLeaks emails, I should offer up the canned Clinton response. In particular, every single Crooked Hillary supporter tries to deflect the content of the emails by claiming, “The Russians did it.” My most formative years were in the 1980s when I thought that the Russians/Soviets were the cause of all evil. Nice try, but I’m not 12 anymore.

Arguably, the Clinton camp refuses to addresses specific emails because they were private communications obtained without consent. Yet, they continue to exploit Trump’s Access Hollywood tape despite it being a private conversation recorded without consent. No one can defend Trump’s disgusting comments about groping women against their will. Then again, no one can defend Crooked Hillary’s illegal “pay-for-play” fund raising activities either.

During the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders pressured Clinton to release the transcripts from her private speeches to Wall Street bankers. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we know why he wanted them released but she didn’t. Of note, her advisors highlighted the following statements from those speeches.


So, whose “private” statements do you find more offensive?


Assuming Trump gets elected president, he won’t be the first (or last) to use foul language. In fact, a simple search of the internet exposes some of the more vulgar presidents. Interestingly, Obama apparently has a flair for obscene language. Additionally, Crooked Hillary has thrown around the “F-Bomb” when she doesn’t get her way. Does that make either of them bad people? No. In fact, it makes them normal.

After apologizing for the Access Hollywood tape, Trump tried to defend his behavior as locker room banter. In response, numerous professional athletes expressed their shock and claimed they never heard such boorish comments in their locker rooms. Are they serious? I wonder if they could make the same argument based on comments made on the court. Based on his reaction after a game against Kevin Garnett, Carmelo Anthony apparently has heard worse.

Again, I can’t defend Trump’s language. At the same time, I wasn’t particularly shocked by it. The media’s presumed outrage did surprise me though. Of note, CNN’s Ana Navarro seemed excited to have an excuse to use the same words.


After Trump denied ever actually groping women against their will, at least 10 women came out publicly to challenge him. In particular, numerous women claimed he either kissed them or grabbed their private parts without their consent. Unlike Trump, I won’t go so far to call them liars. Then again, I have my doubts.

First, some of the stories seem convoluted. When recounting a sexual assault by Trump while next to him on a plane, one of the alleged victims said that the unwanted activity lasted for 15 minutes. After being pressed about the length of the “assault” in a public place, she claimed that she didn’t mind him groping her breasts but drew the line when he went under her skirt.

Second, some of the accusers are failed entertainers who might desire renewed publicity. Does this statement mean that they’re lying? No, of course not. However, it should make everyone pause and question the timing of their accusations.

Third, Gloria Allred represents at least three of the accusers. Whenever I see Allred, my Spidey Sense tells me, “Watch out for the shakedown.” Specifically, she cares much more about the money than justice or the truth.

Did Trump act inappropriately with women at some point in the past? Probably. However, I find it interesting that Hillary vigorously defended her husband against even worse charges (i.e. rape) when he ran for president. On top of that, she attacked the female victims in order to protect Slick Willy.


Crooked Hillary: Pot Meet Kettle


During the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders decided to focus on the issues instead of Clinton’s “damn emails.” Thanks to WikiLeaks we know that the Clinton and Sanders camps had discussion about which topics to keep off limits. Of note, Clinton didn’t want Sanders to bring up her wealth. Apparently, she didn’t want to defend amassing a $250 million net worth in 16 years as a public servant. Given those “off-limit” discussions, who knows what Sanders truly believed about her emails.

In contrast, Trump continues to blast Crooked Hillary for her conveniently missing emails. Specifically, he questions her use of a private server to send and receive confidential information. Additionally, he chastises her for overseeing the deletion of over 30,000 emails. Arguably, the email scandal has been overblown. However, her cavalier and dismissive attitude hasn’t helped. When asked about wiping her server, she quipped, “like with a cloth or something.” Wow!

Last month, we learned that the Obama administration has become embroiled with Clinton’s mess. Of note, Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy offered additional FBI spots in exchange for a lower classification level for specific emails. Importantly, we know about the “quid pro quo” because of the release of notes from FBI interviews and not from WikiLeaks. In other words, the information didn’t come from the Russians. A spokesman for President Obama tried to minimize the situation by claiming that a “quid pro quo” never occurred. Notice that the spokesman didn’t say that it wasn’t attempted.

As an aside, I wonder if she would have been so cavalier if someone hacked into the server and stole classified information. Upon further thought, I sadly have to say, “Yes.”


Based on the FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s server, we know Crooked Hillary had over 100 classified documents pass through her personal server. Despite her “extreme carelessness,” FBI Director James Comey decided not to pursue criminal charges. In particular, he claimed that a prosecutor would have a tough time proving intent. However, I wonder how he’ll respond if/when he learns that someone compromised the server.

At this point, there’s no proof that anyone gained access to the information on Clinton’s server. However, we do know that someone gained access to the systems holding the emails of the DNC as well as Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. According to the Hillary camp, “The Russians did it.”

Even during the most worrisome days of the Cold War, I don’t think anyone worried about this Russian.

Given her security clearance, the former Secretary of State certainly would have known which countries could perform a sophisticated hack. During a speech at Nexenta in August 2014, Clinton remarked:

I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn’t take our computers. We couldn’t take our personal devices. We couldn’t take anything off the plane because they’re so good. They would penetrate them in a minute. Less, a nanosecond.

While speaking at UConn earlier in the year, she said:

At the State Department, we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had. And that was true across the U.S. Government.

OK, let’s get this straight. Crooked Hillary knew that the State Department got attacked every hour by hackers capable of gaining access to communication devices in nanoseconds. Yet, she left government secrets prone to those devious hackers. If you believe her server wasn’t hacked, I have a bridge to sell you.


I remember watching Trump’s announcement of his candidacy with bated breath. At the time, I didn’t consider him a legitimate choice. But guess who did? My college-educated wife. In particular, she became an instant fan of his candor and ability to express her frustration with typical politicians.

Over time, I understood my wife’s fascination with Trump as a candidate and not just as a narcissistic businessman/entertainer. Specifically, I understood how his message could resonate with people wanting change. Furthermore, I began to appreciate his use of bluntness and exaggeration to emphasize a point. Unfortunately, that rhetorical style left him open for criticism.

For example, Trump called out the problem of illegal immigration by stating:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re bringing drugs . . . [and] crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

When taken in context, Trump commented that some illegal Mexican immigrants are good people while others are drug smugglers, criminals, or rapists. However, the media took Trump to have said, “All Mexicans are rapists.” Interestingly, when Democrats refer to “Needy Latinos,” the media don’t care.

In addition, Trump called out the risk for terrorism because of radicalized Muslims. Trump and his supporters are seen as being intolerant of a specific religious group. Yet, Podesta and other Democrats get a free pass when ridiculing Catholics or when trying to change Catholic doctrine. At this point, I wonder which candidate Pope Francis finds more appalling. Well, I know which one should worry him more.


Even before her husband’s second term concluded, Hillary moved to New York in order to run for the Senate. She grew up in Illinois, went to school in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and spent most of her professional career in Arkansas. Her connection to New York? The Democratic machine thought the “Stand By Her Man” candidate had the best shot there.

True to form as a carpetbagger, she ditched the Chicago Cubs and became a New York Yankees fan. Crooked Hillary described the switch in a 2014 interview with the Chicago Tribune. She started by commenting, “I couldn’t stay hitched only to a losing team.” Furthermore, she said:

I had to search for a team that would counterbalance the experience of losing every single year. So, I hate to say this, and I know you’ll boo me, I became a Yankees fan. I alternated my affections because it was just too hard being a Cubs fan, only being a Cubs fan.

In case you missed it, “alternated my affections” simply means “abandoned my convictions.” Thanks to WikiLeaks’ disclosure of Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street, we know other groups abandoned by the Democratic nominee. Perhaps most noteworthy, she no longer feels connected to the middle class given her own wealth. Hey middle class Cubs fans, she’s NOT with you!


Since Clinton and Trump became the presumptive nominees of their respective parties, Trump has never been favored to win the general election. Of note, gave him a 49.9% chance to win as of the end of July. However, that support reflected a post-convention bump that reversed quickly. Two weeks later, the site gave him only an 11% chance of winning.

Prior to the start of the debates, Trump rebounded and increased his odds to 45%. However, his numbers steadily fell throughout the debate season. Of course, the timely release of the Access Hollywood tape didn’t help. In fact, his chance of winning fell to 12% immediately afterward. At that time, Hillary and most of the media started making plans for the Clinton victory party.

But wait . . .

With only 11 days to go before the election, FBI Director James Comey announced that he reopened the investigation into Hillary’s private email server. Back in July, the Democrats praised Comey’s integrity and diligence when he initially closed the investigation without recommending criminal charges. Now, those same people claim that he violated Department of Justice protocol and has a political agenda.

But wait . . .

With less than 48 hours before the opening of most polls, Comey confirmed his initial findings from July. Specifically, he supposedly didn’t find any new information from the 650,000 emails on the personal computer of Clinton confidant Huma Abadeen. I’d really like to know the search parameters used to allow the FBI to review over 70,000 emails/day for nine days. More importantly, has the damage been done? We’ll find out soon enough.


Given Trump’s recent momentum, I think he’ll pull out a narrow victory in both the popular (+0.8%) and electoral vote (280-258). In order to hit these numbers, he’ll need to win all of the important battleground states (e.g. Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina). Furthermore, I predict that he’ll turn at least one traditionally blue state such as Pennsylvania or Michigan. While my prediction goes against every major poll, I believe there are closet Trump supporters who refused to participate or be honest with pollsters.

I understand that this post won’t affect any votes given its timing. However, I hope it serves as a reminder of what we experienced going into the 2016 Presidential election. Despite my prediction, the only fitting ending would be a 269-269 tie ending up in a 270-268 Trump victory because one of the Washington state electors refuses to vote for Crooked Hillary. At that point, I wonder if she will challenge the election despite chastising Trump for suggesting that same exact thing. Heck, there’s no need to wonder. Of course she will.

[Thankfully, I posted this article on the eve of the election. Excited to see the outcome, I watched the early results with colleagues from work. As highlighted in my article, I told them that the winner would come down to Michigan or Pennsylvania with Trump eventually winning. While amused with my analysis, none of them believed me. At least I got credit when showing up to work the next day. Perhaps I should quit predicting sports busts and focus on politics instead. Nah, there’s just too much time in between elections.]

5 thoughts on “Top 10 Busted: Claims By Crooked Hillary

Comments are closed.