Watch Closely: Stunning Thing Moderator Gives To Dem Candidates After Debate Would NEVER Happen To Repubs

The latest Democratic presidential debate took place Thursday night, and it was a one-on-one debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. While one of the debate’s most intense confrontations arguably stemmed from Clinton’s accusation that Sanders’ campaign was engaged in an “artful smear” of Clinton’s relationship with Wall Street, both agreed to avoid dwelling on media scandals involving the two candidates. But it’s what happened after the intense debate that has a lot of people talking.

One might say the tension between presidential candidate Donald Trump and Fox News moderator Megyn Kelly was contrasted starkly when MSNBC moderator Rachel Maddow hugged Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton after the debate was over.

One of the first to notice the embraces was Brit Hume.

One could say the Fox and Friends hosts had a heyday with Maddow hugging the candidates. Steve Doocy said, “It’s hard to ask a hard question when secretly you just want to hug ’em.” Geraldo Rivera jumped in: “But wasn’t it revealing though, that’s the point. When Rachel Maddow comes up and hugs Hillary Clinton, it’s like saying, ‘Never mind. I didn’t mean any of that.’” Having the last word, Brian Kilmeade asked, “Have you ever seen the refs hug Peyton Manning at the end of the game?”

The warm and fuzzy relationship Clinton apparently has with the media has been a cause for criticism since the campaign began in 2015, with some even saying the media is shielding Clinton from tough moderators and difficult lines of questioning.

Watch: Chelsea Clinton Just Accidentally Let Something Slip On TV Her Mom Will Hate

While playing her role in her mother’s campaign to win the Democratic presidential nomination, Chelsea Clinton made a slip of the tongue when speaking about Hillary Clinton’s rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt.

“We also need to strip away the immunity that President Sanders — excuse me — Senator Sanders, I hope not President Sanders…,” Chelsea Clinton said Wednesday as she reacted to the slip nervously and the Minneapolis crowd laughed.

 

Although the slip was relatively small, it came as Chelsea Clinton begins to play a more significant role in her mother’s campaign. Initially Chelsea served as a voice to portray a softer side of her mother, but now has taken to the offensive to go against Sanders.

“The thing that tells you as much as anything about (the Clinton campaign’s) current state of mind is Chelsea going on the attack. It tells you everything you need to know,” The Hill wrote, quoting one Democratic strategist. “That this (challenge from Sanders) is real and they’ve got to be freaking out.”

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who has endorsed Sanders, told The Hill the attacks are a sign the Clinton campaign is worried.

“I perhaps could see it coming from Bill, but I was taken aback hearing it from Chelsea,” said Grijalva. “I was surprised and thought it was out of character. It seems the Clinton campaign is going into full destruction mode very early in this process.”

Using her daughter to press home attacks on her rival removes one important facet needed in the Clinton campaign, one strategist said.

“The best role for her is to help in humanizing Hillary and talking about what a great mother and grandmother she is,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “Hillary has plenty of edge on her own, she doesn’t need help there. She has such an asset in her family if only they can use them the right way.”

“This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I was Chelsea, that’s not where I’d want to be,” said Bannon.

h/t: The American Mirror

Watch: Candace Cameron Bure Just Pointed Out 1 Thing About Hillary ‘The View’ Can’t Ignore

As the 2016 presidential primary heats up for candidates in both parties, the women of ABC’s The View have been adding to the political discourse with their differing takes on the front-running campaign.

After roundly criticizing Republican Donald Trump’s ad hominem attacks against Ted Cruz following the latter’s resounding win in the Iowa caucuses, the talk show’s co-hosts took on Democrat Hillary Clinton’s participation in lucrative speaking engagements. The focus of the segment revolved around the $675,000 Clinton earned for making three speeches to investment banking firm Goldman Sachs.

For Joy Behar, the controversy surrounding these payments seems hypocritical.

“The Republicans can make money,” she said, while “Democrats have to do, like, missionary work … in Africa for some reason.”

Whoopi Goldberg also took Clinton’s side, though perhaps less enthusiastically.

While she said she could “understand” why rival Bernie Sanders is making political hay of the financial transactions, Goldberg asserted that Clinton is “from the east, and that’s where the money is.”

When Behar chimed in that accepting the fees does not mean Clinton is “on the take with Goldman Sachs,” co-host Candace Cameron Bure explained that perception is a major reason many Americans have a problem with the six-figure payout.

“Don’t you think it’s kind of like when a guy takes a girl out on a date,” she inquired, “and he’s paying for it every time, and he’s like, ‘But we’ll just be friends, we’ll just be friends. We’re cool with that.’ Like, no, the guy wants to be more than friends.”

Furthermore, she cited Clinton’s own campaign platform as a reason the big paychecks might turn some voters off.

“For Hillary talking about equality with everyone,” she said, “there’s something that is not relatable to getting $675,000 for a speaking fee.”

Does Cosby Have Any Emails?

Does Bill Cosby have emails boasting about his sexual conquests?

Probably not, but with all the attention being paid to Hillary’s State Department emails on her personal server, it doesn’t hurt to ask. Of course, I’m being sarcastic. But anything new on the Bill Cosby case keeps him in the news and extends the shelf life of the current Pennsylvania criminal case against him.  There is always the chance of an additional criminal case elsewhere, if one can be found within the statute of limitations, and certainly more civil cases.

That’s all Hillary needs, for the Cosby story to run through the primaries. This is on top of her email controversy, which still has no closure.

Hillary has never explained plausibly why she established an email account with a private server, a mode likely compromised by foreign intelligence; and how it is that she sent and received emails that may have impaired U.S. security and almost certainly violated laws used to prosecute others. From my own experience, I know what a security clearance means, what it is to be briefed in writing and orally about the protocols of a clearance, and to sign in writing an acknowledgement that you understand and accept these conditions.

While the major government investigation of what looks like Hillary’s violations of the law continues, the question is how much longer it can continue. By all accounts it is a thorough investigation, which the FBI Director might not have authorized unless he were going to do it seriously. The FBI Director will have to defend the investigation, whether he recommends prosecution or not. And the attorney general will be on the hot seat if the FBI director concludes the law has been violated, and the AG passes on prosecution. Last Friday’s State Department disclosure of new Hillary emails at a higher security level has caused apprehension within the campaign. Hillary is preempting by making the email issue another “Benghazi.”

The Cosby case is far more subtle. The longer it continues, the more attention it focuses on a powerful man who is accused of being a sexual predator. As in the matter of former president Bill Clinton, the accusations against Cosby are multiple–that is, from different women who do not know each other–over a period of time. And, as with Clinton, some of the accusers date back years, even decades. And, as with Clinton, there was – for one case – a financial settlement in a civil suit. Thus, Cosby becomes a proxy for Clinton.

Yesterday in Norristown, Pennsylvania, on the second and final day of a two-day preliminary hearing, judge Steven O’Neill ruled that the full trial would go forward. While Cosby’s lawyers will appeal, they likely will lose that appeal; and then the question will be when will the case go forward, and can the civil suit deposition be admitted in evidence.

Cosby’s lawyers did not simply argue (and lose the argument) that the newly elected district attorney Kevin Steele should not stay on the case. O’Neill also did not accept the more fundamental argument, advanced by Cosby’s attorneys, that the case should not go forward because the original prosecutor, then-District Attorney Bruce Castor, gave Cosby full immunity.

During the first day of the preliminary hearing, Castor told Cosby’s lawyer that “I’m not on your team.” Castor explained that his decision not to proceed did not mean he did not believe the accusations by Andrea Constand, but he was doubtful the charges could be proven in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is some question about the competence of Cosby’s original lawyers. It seems they proceeded with the civil deposition years back, in which Cosby discussed his modus operandi of using Quaaludes to seduce women; his accusers say it was not a matter of seduction but of rendering them unable to function, so as to offer resistance. Generally, a grant of immunity is formal and written and might well need to be approved by a judge, but Cosby’s lawyers went ahead, simply because the prosecutor said he would not proceed on the criminal case. It would hardly seem that this decision and any oral assurance would be binding, and certainly not on a future prosecutor.

Castor explained he wanted the victim to recover money from Cosby in a civil case, and he declined to prosecute so that Cosby could not take the Fifth Amendment in that case. Castor testified that getting Constand money from Cosby via a civil suit settlement was “the best he could do.”

Hillary is not doing well among young female voters, including females under, say, age 40. In the Law and Order SVU age, sexual assault is taken much more seriously. Trump briefly raised, then dropped, the issue of Hillary enabling her husband’s behavior, which Bernie Sanders terms “disgraceful.” But the real issue is whether Bill Clinton sexually assaulted several women and whether Hillary tried to discredit, intimidate and silence them.

If Trump continues in the race or were to win the nomination, and Hillary is the Democratic nominee, and the Cosby case continues, you can expect Trump to push Hillary hard on her role in suppressing “bimbo eruptions.” If another Republican is the nominee, it’s unclear whether that nominee might raise the issue.

Watch: Clergy Caught Making Perfect Reaction To Hillary’s ‘Vow’- Camera Cuts Away Instantly

The argument that abortion should be legal because it’s is a woman’s right to make her own “healthcare” decisions, has been used time and time again by pro-abortion supporters. Hillary Clinton is one of those supporters who used that particular argument and is one of abortion’s biggest advocates, fighting tirelessly to uphold even partial-birth abortion in the U.S.

Many Americans do not buy the “healthcare” argument, as abortion denies thousands of unborn children the right to life, much less the right to healthcare.

At a recent townhall, Clinton espoused her extremely pro-abortion positions saying, “We’re going to defend our rights. We’re going to defend a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions. We’re going to defend Planned Parenthood. We’re going to defend marriage equality. We’re going to defend discrimination against LGBT Americans. And we’re going to take on the gun lobby.”

Apparently there were some at the town hall who do not hold Clinton’s view. The video camera panned the attendees, as she’s speaking. Right as Clinton promised to defend Planned Parenthood, a group that has been found distributing baby parts for profit, a clergyman in the audience can be seen shaking his head from side to side in disagreement.  Without even saying a word, the clergyman voiced of disapproval with abortion and abortion providers. The Blaze took notice and posted his actions of disagreement on Twitter.