No Debate; CNBC Debate Moderators' Abysmal Performance

Editor’s Note – Here at SUA we often find ourselves watching endless coverage of Congressional hearings, reading almost every headline published and devouring most of the more impactful articles in depth and you can bet the house on the fact that we watch every debate, sometimes more than once.

But last night may prove to be one of those “I paid for this microphone” moments we will remember for decades to come – an abysmal performance by all at CNBC we may never forget.

It not only started out bad with insipid pre-debate banter that over ran into the time the candidates were being introduced where one commentator actually brought up previous memorable debate moments like the Reagan line, presaging more memorable moments about to be heard.

Debate moderators Carl Quintanilla (L), Becky Quick (C) and John Harwood  question candidates at the third Republican Presidential Debate hosted by CNBC, October 28, 2015 at the Coors Event Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado.  AFP PHOTO / ROBYN BECK        (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images) But will they still have jobs after last night?
Debate moderators Carl Quintanilla (L), Becky Quick (C) and John Harwood question candidates at the third Republican Presidential Debate hosted by CNBC, October 28, 2015 at the Coors Event Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. AFP PHOTO / ROBYN BECK (Photo credit should read ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images)

Ironically, that Reagan v. Bush debate was also on NBC when Ronald Reagan so famously scolded the moderator then like Mitt Romney should have scolded Monica Crowley in  2012.

Mr. JON BREEN, Moderator: Would the sound man please turn Mr. Reagan’s mic off for the moment?

Mr. RONALD REAGAN, GOP Presidential Candidate: Is this on? Mr. Green…If you ask me… I am paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!

Reagan may have gotten the name wrong, but he certainly put Breen in his place and last night, Sen. Cruz put the entire panel of moderators in their rightful place – ignominy!

Last night we saw virtually every candidate feel the need to scold the moderators from CNBC and correctly so in our opinion. In fact, many think Crowley recovered okay but John Harwood and Becky Quick may have ruined their careers with their performances last night.

These two may take the gold and silver as the following article explains, but it was more than Mr. Priebus on the carpet now, it may also have been the death knell from Jeb Bush who was bested at least twice, one by Rubio and then by Chris Christie:

The mainstream media—as represented by the business cable network’s principal moderators, Carl Quintanilla, Becky Quick, and especially John Harwood—took it on the chin as candidate after candidate, to hearty applause from the partisan audience at the University of Colorado, pointed out that their questions were inaccurate, unfair, or otherwise plain silly.

“Are we truly talking about fantasy football?” New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie demanded after Quintanilla asked former Florida governor Jeb Bush whether the online sports industry should be regulated as a gambling enterprise by the federal government.

Bush however may be the biggest loser for another reason, not only did he get bested by his former “student” he also wasted his scant time (he had the least) on talking about his fantasy football prowess instead of how to fix the nation.

Perhaps our favorite line of the night also came from Senator Cruz when he pointed out the irony of an all democratic set of moderators at a Republican debate as well as Democrat debates:

…nobody watching at home believed that any of the moderators had any intention of voting in a Republican primary. (Read the entire transcript here.)

Senator Cruz rightfully scolds the moderators...
Senator Cruz rightfully scolds the moderators…

Also, why were there so many moderators and why were they always appearing to yell? Jim Cramer…shake the head folks! Last night proves what we all know…media bias is a clear and present danger to our nation!

Please watch here for the “ten best moments” as compiled by the Washington Post then read on:

%CODE%

CNBC’s Harwood Now Media Bias Poster Boy After Career-Altering ‘Moderating’ of GOP Debate

I had to watch it again.

I had to make sure I witnessed what I just witnessed.

And upon absorbing the whole thing and double checking my notes from watching last night and again this morning before sunrise, they were practically identical. Conclusion: CNBC, a solid niche network with solid talent, just performed the worst moderation of any debate — and we’re including all presidential, vice presidential, fictional… the one fromOld School (Will Ferrell’s Frank the Tank vs. James Carville moderated by Jeremy Piven’s Dean Pritcher), the one from Clueless (Alicia Silverstone vs Amber on the plight of Haitian refugees) — in American history.

So who’s to blame? Here’s your Top 3 culprits:

1) Gold — John Harwood.

I was foolish enough to believe that Harwood, who doesn’t hide his biases leftward, would be professional and (more importantly) aware enough of being on the biggest stage of his career to ask substantive questions without editorial. First question out of the gate? Dubbing the GOP frontrunner’s (RCP average) candidacy as fiction, as right out of a “comic book.” That set the tone for the entire evening, and most of the candidates on stage sensed what was happening. Ted Cruz, who tied winning this debate with Marco Rubio, seized the opportunity with this haymaker:

“Let me say something at the outset,” said Cruz. “The questions that you have asked so far in this debate illustrate why the American people do not trust the media.

“This is not a cage match,” he said.

“And if you look at the questions: Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math. John Kasich, will you insult two people over here. Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues people care about.”

I’ve never been one to reflexively use the term “liberal mainstream media” anywhere–TV, radio, columns. It’s a beaten-down term that sometimes has some weight (via a specific hard example) behind it, but oftentimes doesn’t (via reaching to connect the dots around conspiracy theories). And it’s used so often that the impact gets lost (Google any instance the term “liberal mainstream media” has been used in this space, win valuable prizes). But last night wasn’t one of those times where Republicans and conservative media were whining without warrant for being treated different than their Democratic counterparts. They were treated differently. Blatantly. At two points Harwood outright lied (yes… lied… these weren’t cases of simply misstating the facts).

The first instance regarded Rubio’s tax plan, which Harwood had to correct himself on in a story written two weeks ago:

HarwoodTweet

HARWOOD: Senator Rubio, 30 seconds to you. The Tax Foundation, which was alluded to earlier, scored your tax plan and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top 1 percent as to people in the middle of the income scale. Since you’re the champion of Americans living paycheck-to- paycheck, don’t you have that backward?

RUBIO: No, that’s — you’re wrong. In fact, the largest after- tax gains is for the people at the lower end of the tax spectrum under my plan. And there’s a bunch of things my tax plan does to help them. Number one, you have people in this country that…

HARWOOD: The Tax Foundation — just to be clear, they said the…

RUBIO: …you wrote a story on it, and you had to go back and correct it.

HARWOOD (now lying): No, I did not.

RUBIO: You did. No, you did.

The second time Harwood lied regarded the length of the debate itself. Per about 1,000 media outlets and the network itself, CNBC had planned for three hours, but shortened it to two after Trump and Carson threatened a boycott. And when Trump was bragging about getting the network to acquiesce to his demands quickly, Harwood inexplicably insisted the debate was two hours all along. It’s not hard to imagine an executive producer back in the control room using the CBS Sports director line from the movie Tin Cup, when Kevin Costner’s Roy McAvoy was self-destructing on the final hole of the U.S. Open: “That’s insane! Somebody tackle him!”

Needless to say, no objective person will take Harwood seriously about anything for a very long time. This was career-altering stuff we witnessed last night.

2) Silver — Becky Quick.

She had Trump dead to rights on a disparaging quote regarding Mark Zuckerberg and Rubio (calling Rubio the Facebook founder’s “personal senator” on his own website). We’ll avoid the details, because the true relevance here is Quick’s preparation and sourcing. Here’s the transcript:

QUICK: You have been very critical of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook who has wanted to increase these number of H1b —

TRUMP: I was not at all critical of him. In frank, he’s complaining that we’re losing some of the best people … I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley.

QUICK: So where did I read this and come up with this you’re —

TRUMP: Probably, I don’t know. You people write this stuff.

Moderator 101 stuff: If you’re quoting someone to their face with millions watching, you might want to have the source of where that quote came from at the ready. Quick did not, even after having weeks to prepare for such a moment. Again, like Harwood, this was another unforced error that will at least ensure she’s never part of any presidential debate going forward.

3) Bronze — Reince Priebus.

The RNC Chair should take a few lessons from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who rules with a Vladimir Putin-like iron fist when it comes to debates, format, moderator selection, etc. You can blame CNBC all you like, but Priebus agreed to this Fugitive-esque train wreck. Many conservatives on Twitter are calling for him to be fired for allowing Harwood anywhere near the moderator table and not vetting the network better beforehand. That won’t happen, of course, but if and when it eventually does, mark Oct. 28/CNBC in your calendar for when that ball got rolling.

Honorable mention — Saturday Night Live. Will NBC mock their own sister network the way they did Fox and CNN for prior debates? Don’t count on anything too edgy… we’ll put it that way.

The Republicans held their third debate last night. It was so bad, it had to be viewed twice just for confirmation alone. And just like the first two debates, the next day we’re not talking about who made the best arguments, presented the best ideas or who appeared the most presidential.

Instead, in a recurring theme on this reality show: It’s all about the moderators, the food fights, and in last night’s case, the unmistakable bias marinated in snark.

 

Establishment GOP, throws in towel? "A sign of weakness!"

Editor’s Note – The ‘Establishment’ GOP throws in the towel without even putting up a fight? Does the ‘Ol’ Guard’, establishment GOP,  represent “We the People” or even those that put them into their offices?

The Senate GOP Plan to Surrender Debt Control to Obama

By Mike Flynn – Breitbart News

Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, (R-KY), are reportedly planning legislation allowing President Barack Obama to lift the nation’s debt ceiling on his authority, according to sources on Capitol Hill.

Under the potential Senate Republican plan, Congress would merely retain the right to “disapprove” of the President’s action to lift the nation’s debt limit. But disapproving the action would require a hard-to-reach two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, gestures during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Sept. 23, 2008, regarding the financial crisis. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Political observers may recognize this move. It is similar to the Corker-Cardin legislation that allowed Obama to agree to the nuclear deal with Iran. The Corker legislation simply allowed Congress to disapprove the action, albeit with a vote threshold that was almost impossible to attain.

It conveniently allowed the Iran deal to come into force while enabling Republicans to vote against the treaty in everything but name.

Adopting the Corker framework for the debt ceiling does two things important to Sen. McConnell. It would allow the nation’s debt ceiling to increase, empowering the Treasury Department to continue borrowing funds.

It would also allow most Republicans to cast symbolic votes against lifting the debt ceiling. They could then campaign saying they were against raising the debt ceiling in the upcoming elections next Fall.

It’s a plan only a politician in Washington could love. It also goes a long way to explain the visceral disgust most voters feel towards Washington. On a more fundamental level, it explains the existential crisis gripping the Republican party.

The debt ceiling limits the amount of debt the federal government can accumulate, and is now set at $18,100 billion.

The federal government is borrowing additional funds for the expected 2016 budget, so it will hit that limit sometime after Nov. 3. Unless raised again, the ceiling would bar additional borrowing, and would force politically painful cuts in annual federal spending.

The Republican party in Washington is basically in the business of hiring hit-men, to ensure it has a solid alibi when a crime is committed.

The operational strategy of the Republican party now is to avoid any protracted political fight with Obama or the Democrats and hope to gain marginal political advantage in the next election. It presumably is working for a day when it control all levers of government by such a margin that it can enact its platform with zero political risk.

In the coming weeks, while most of the political world is consumed with the battle to replace

Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) as House Speaker, the Congressional calendar is chocked-full of measures that the Washington establishment thinks must be passed. A new spending bill must be authorized by early December.

The Treasury Department says the debt ceiling must be lifted in early November to avoid a potential default on the nation’s debt. There is a “need” to shore-up the Highway Trust Fund and a desperate push by corporate donors to reestablish the Export-Import Bank.

The pending Senate plan to give Obama the power to lift the debt ceiling is preview of how Republicans plan to navigate these waters. They would rather cede Congressional authority over the purse to Obama than have a debate or fight.

If Senate Republicans go through with a Corker-type bill granting Obama the power to lift the debt ceiling, as seems likely, it raises the question not only of why we have Republicans, but why we have a Senate.

Bernie Sanders, Hillary; Socialism,"It doesn't work"!

Editor’s note –  Fact check – Bernie Sander’s, currently 2nd place. He’s been a Senator for 16 years, representing Vermont.  A Socialist. Age 74.

Does Bernie Sanders know what it means to be a Socialist? Both Karl Marx (Marxism) and Adolf Hilter (Nazism) considered themselves Socialists, and Communism is similar.

Bernie Sanders’s Denmark Comments Show He Doesn’t Even Understand His Own ‘Socialism’

By Kevin D. Williamson – National Review

It had to be Denmark, didn’t it? If you are the sort of person who has better things to do — which is to say, a fully functioning adult who is not professionally obliged to follow these things — then you probably missed the exchange between Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders at last night’s debate, when she lectured him that the United States isn’t Denmark and he responded with a rousing defense of the Danish model.

Never mind, for the moment, that neither of these batty old geezers has the foggiest idea of what’s going on in Denmark, or in the other Nordic countries. Denmark, like Sweden before it, has been engaged in a long campaign of reforming its famously generous welfare state.

The country’s current prime minister is the leader of a center-right party, which, strangely enough, goes by the name “Left,” Venstre. (You might even call it libertarian; its former longtime leader wrote a book bearing the positively Nozickian title “From Social State to Minimal State.” ) Denmark has been marching in the direction exactly opposite socialism for some time.

Our friends at the Heritage Foundation rank its economy the eleventh most free in the world, one place ahead of the United States, reflecting Denmark’s strong property rights, relative freedom from corruption, low public debt, freedom of trade and investment, etc. Don’t tell Senator Sanders, but Denmark’s corporate tax rate is a heck of a lot lower than our own.

Senator Sanders is not very serious about imitating Denmark. Denmark has a large and expensive welfare state, which Senator Sanders envies.

He doesn’t envy the other part of that handshake: Denmark pays for that large and expensive welfare state the only way that you can: with relatively high taxes on the middle class, whose members pay both high income taxes and a value-added tax.

If Senator Sanders were an intellectually honest man, he’d acknowledge forthrightly that the only way to pay for generous benefits for the middle class is to tax the middle class, where most of the income earners are.

Instead, he talks about taxing a handful of billionaires to pay for practically everything. Rhetorically, he’s already spent the entire holdings of the billionaire class many times over. Sanders’s line of thinking seems to go: ‘Bankers, money, evil, greedy, Make Them Pay!’

But Senator Sanders does not seem as if he thinks a great deal about these things. He worries about the size of the holdings of our largest banks (I’d bet a dollar that he could not explain the difference between an investment bank and a commercial bank) and frets that six big banks have assets equal to 65 percent of U.S. GDP.

<> on July 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.
<> on July 24, 2014 in Washington, DC.

He does not consider that in Switzerland there are two banks whose combined assets are well more than twice Switzerland’s GDP, a reflection of the fact that the moneyed people and institutions of the world have a great deal of confidence in Swiss financial institutions, or that similar parties invest with American institutions for similar reasons.

And never mind that Denmark’s largest bank has assets totaling 1.6 times Denmark’s GDP — a lot more than the 65 percent split among six banks in the United States that so troubles Sanders.

Democrats are positively delusional about this stuff, talking about Glass-Steagall as though not repealing it would have changed one thing about the way business was done at a pure-play investment bank such as Lehman Bros. or Bear Stearns.

The policy is entirely unrelated to the problem, but neither the Democratic presidential candidates nor their voters understand the problem or the policy.

They know only that Copenhagen is lovely, and people like Senator Sanders enjoy citing its “example” while shouting such nonsensical sentences as “Free health care is a right!”

Denmark is on the mind of Francis Fukuyama, whose Political Order and Political Decay has now been issued in paperback, to the delight of cheapskate readers everywhere.

Fukuyama, borrowing from a group of developmental economists, introduces his readers to the phrase “isomorphic mimicry,” by which he means the error that poor and developing countries make when they adopt the formal institutions of the developed world in the absence of the underlying values, habits, and culture that make those institutions effective.

This is part of the problem he calls — surprise — “getting to Denmark.” Fukuyama: The problem is that Denmark did not get to be Denmark in a matter of months or years. Contemporary Denmark — and all other developed countries — gradually evolved modern institutions over the course of centuries.

If outside powers try to impose their own models of good institutions on a country, they are likely to produce what Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock, and Matt Andrews call “isomorphic mimicry”: a copying of the outward forms of Western institutions but without their substance.

(Here is the Pritchett-Woolcock-Andrews paper, which is well worth your time.)  

That isomorphic mimicry is a great stumbling block. We’re right now in the end stages of failing, spectacularly, in a project to impose liberal democratic institutions on a Muslim world that isn’t much interested in them, but some of our more energetic conservative interventionists still seem to believe that one day an Arab or a Chinese is going to happen across a copy of the U.S. Constitution and build a Connecticut in the Orient.

Cult is the first word in culture, which bears some consideration: The American revolutionaries emerged from a Puritan-Quaker culture shaped by the hardships of colonial life with the savage frontier in front of them and the Atlantic Ocean at their backs; the French revolutionaries emerged from a decadent Catholic culture shaped by court life and European rivalries.

Both parties cried “Liberty!” but one produced the Bill of Rights and the other produced the Terror. The cultural distance between 21st-century Anglo-American liberals and tribal jihadis in the Hindu Kush is rather greater than was the distance between Thomas Jefferson and the Abbé Sieyès.

Aping the superficial attractive forms of alien polities is not an error limited to the poor and the backward. Our progressive friends argued that Obamacare is just like the Swiss health-care system, which is generally quite highly regarded, and it is, with one important difference: Switzerland is full of Swiss people and the United States is not.

The Swiss health-care system turns out to be poorly suited for a country that isn’t Swiss. Any bets on how well the Danish welfare state is going to play in Mississippi and New Jersey? Progressives who imagine that Americans are one election away from getting to Denmark do not understand Denmark, or America, or much of anything.

— Kevin D. Williamson is roving correspondent at National Review.

The Evidence Against Hillary Clinton Is Growing.

Editor’s Note – Benghazi update. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another Hillary Clinton private server.

Fresh evidence keeps sinking Hillary Clinton’s email defense

Hillary Clinton’s “there’s no evidence of that” line of defense over her email mess continues to crumble in the face of . . . new evidence.

For all her talk of how using a private email account for her work running the State Department was just fine, it’s now plain she left top-secret information vulnerable to hackers.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to questions during a campaign stop ,Tuesday, July 28, 2015, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listens to questions during a campaign stop ,Tuesday, July 28, 2015, in Nashua, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

More evidence is likely to come out. The FBI’s probe has now expanded to include another private server she used, a backup service with Connecticut-based Datto Inc.

And now the Associated Press has confirmed that her main server was the target of repeated cyberattacks from China, South Korea and Germany. And those came after she left office, when her team belatedly agreed to use some threat-monitoring software.

In other news, a FOIA request from the watchdog group Citizens United has uncovered the fact that Hill’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, was forwarding classified info to the Clinton Foundation — so staff there could support Bill Clinton’s work in Africa.

Add to this new details about Hillary’s emails with longtime aide Sidney Blumenthal — emails that somehow didn’t make it into the data she finally handed over once word broke that she’d failed to share her work product with the government.

Her extensive communications with him include the naming of a CIA source (obviously classified) as he pushed for action in Libya — action that would benefit his clients.

“It is curious Secretary Clinton took so much of her advice from someone who had never been to Libya, professed no independent knowledge of the country and who the White House blocked her from hiring,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the select committee trying to finally get to the full facts on the deadly Benghazi attack.

Curious? Hey, in Clintonworld, blending policy with pocket-lining is routine — national security be damned.

 

Adviser to Hillary: 'Lawyer Up' – McCarthy May Have Saved Her

Editor’s Note – Just as people like Ed Klein write about how guilty Hillary is and that her advisors are telling her to secure the services of a criminal defense attorney, someone on the right steps on his own tongue and gives her the perfect foil to change the subject. Of course we all know that if it were not for the Select Committee’s fine work to date we may never have known about Hillary Clinton’s illegal email scandal.

Of course we do say illegal because it has been proven over and over but the vast population of America does not have the time to pay close attention to her lies and twisting stories. She depends upon keeping people in the dark, relying on short attention spans and memories with all her twists and turns, all the lies. Now she is pushing the new meme that she hopes will sweep the nation – that the Select Committee on Benghazi was always a political hit job and McCarthy’s statements prove it.

The Clinotn Campaign logo at bottom right tells all you need to know what they think of Kevin McCarthy's gaffe.
The Clinton Campaign logo at bottom right tells all you need to know about what they think of Kevin McCarthy’s gaffe.

She has already come out and uses the fact that four Americans are dead and the Republicans are using them for political gain smear, all when clear minded people know she is the one responsible for their deaths. On the morning talk shows she said the following:

“Look at the situation they chose to exploit, to go after me for political reasons: the death of four Americans in Benghazi,” Clinton said. “I knew the ambassador. I identified him. I asked him to go there. I asked the president to nominate him.” (Business Insider)

All we will hear from now on from her campaign will be Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s name because of his gaffe. Hillary and team will push her age old meme that there is a vast right wing conspiracy that has been trying to take her and her husband down all these years.

Those of us who follow her closely like Ed Klein does know full well that the whole Clinton schtick has always been a RICO act. Normally a shtick is a comedy routine, but the one left laughing last laughs best and that could be Hillary surviving yet another scandal that would have meant a long term stay behind bars for the regular American thanks to a man who aspires to be the new Speaker of the House.

McCarthy may have been taken out of context, but in his zeal he just could not help himself assail Hillary in decline. Many think he is a Boehner clone and if conservative Americans allow him to be the next leader, we should all think of the Who’s ‘song lyrics, “here’s the boss, same as the old boss”. America, ‘don’t be fooled again’, push for Jason Chaffetz to be the next Speaker. Call your congressman today, but even Jason thinks it may be too late!

The usual suspects are now joining Hillary in a ‘form of righteous indignation’. Media Matters is already pushing a petition to force an ethics investigation into the select committee while the FBI is actually doing a criminal investigation on Clinton. The left does not seek truth, only power – at any cost. They know a gift when they see one and are exploiting it in grand fashion already.

We can only hope that the rule-of-law trumps the Clinton RICO machine and their connections in the DOJ are overcome by the severity and extent of her illegal ways. Ethics investigation? That is rich, just like the Clintons.

Ed Klein: Hillary Adviser Warning Her to ‘Lawyer Up’

By Cathy Burke – Newsmax

Email scandal-plagued Hillary Clinton is reportedly getting some ominous advice from a longtime and trusted legal adviser: Lawyer-up. Edward Klein, author of “Unlikeable: The Problem with Hillary,” writes on his website.

HillaryMcCarthyThe unnamed confidante suggests Clinton hire a criminal defense lawyer in case she’s indicted for mishandling classified documents on her private email server, and for allegedly lying under oath.

“This e-mail thing is spiraling out of control,” the Clinton adviser tells Klein. “To paraphrase John Dean of Watergate fame, it’s a cancer on her candidacy. Frankly, I am used to my advice on legal matters being taken very seriously and acted upon by the Clintons.”

“I’ve told them repeatedly that this FBI e-mail investigation could go in a very dangerous direction very quickly,” he adds, according to Klein. “But Hillary is still acting as though it’s a political smear job by right-wing zealots.”

The adviser tells Klein that Justice Department prosecutors expect the FBI probe on the case to wrap up as soon as the end of this year.

“Hillary needs to secure the services of an expert legal counsel—preferably a big-league defense attorney from the Republican side of the aisle,” the adviser tells Klein. “She needs someone to find out whether the FBI and Justice Department are likely to conclude that she’s violated federal laws governing national security.”

He also notes joking about the issue hasn’t helped her case. “By joking about her email problem and treating it like a PR issue, she’s only hurting herself, maybe mortally, with the prosecutors,” Klein quotes the adviser saying. “Insulting career FBI and Justice Department investigators is a very bad and ill-advised strategy. You don’t want to be blindsided.

And if you ignore it, pretend it is a partisan ploy, and act scornfully, it will blindside you.”

“There is going to be blood in the water,” the adviser warns. “The investigators are looking for weak links to get to the bottom of what went on with Hillary’s national security emails. And I’m afraid they will find it.”