What are your thoughts on Dick Morris, former advisor to Bill Clinton? And what about Clinton? My guess is that Clinton is so horny he would be willing to fuck anyone!
After doing a quick search, I'll say I'd hit that.
While doing said search, I found this pic and questions came up.
Earlier this year, during a live interview, a mysterious half-dressed man appeared behind Dick Morris midway through an interview never breaking stride.
And I've found nothing explaining who this large, bald, scantily-clad man walking through his home is.
I found out Morris was forced to resign as Bill Clinton's advisor in 1996 after his affair with a prostitute was revealed. He paid her $200 an hour to sleep with him and it emerged that he liked sucking toes.
But nothing on the guy in the white tank top and black boxers. And somehow it makes Morris hotter in my eyes.
Smartmatic’s defamation case against Newsmax, which accuses the right-wing cable channel of spreading conspiracy theories about the voting t
Helena Hind and Jane Lee at MMFA:
Smartmatic’s defamation case against Newsmax, which accuses the right-wing cable channel of spreading conspiracy theories about the voting technology company for profit and consequently damaging its reputation, is slated to begin soon.
After right-wing media competitor Fox News unexpectedly but accurately called Arizona for Joe Biden during the 2020 election, Newsmax seized an opportunity to attract conservative viewers by spreading conspiracy theories about the vote, including about Smartmatic. Smartmatic alleges Newsmax knew these conspiracy theories were untrue but continued to circulate them for the sake of profit. (Fox is embroiled in a lawsuit over its own conspiracy theories about Smartmatic and settled with another voting technology company, Dominion Voting Systems, last year.)
In the aftermath of the 2020 elections, various Newsmax hosts, guests, and contributors have spread election denialist lies about Smartmatic.
Political consultant and pollster Dick Morris, who played a key role in former President Bill Clinton’s 1996 comeback reelection effort, is spilling the beans on his long-time friend former President Donald Trump in a new book out tomorrow, The Return.
The Supreme Court, by a 7-2 margin, swiftly rejected the case:
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.
That facile statement is an insult to Trump supporters. “Standing” is not a complicated concept. In Whitmore v. Arkansas (1990) 495 U.S. 149, 155, the Supreme Court explained,
To establish an Art. III case or controversy, a litigant first must clearly demonstrate that he has suffered an “injury in fact.” That injury, we have emphasized repeatedly, must be concrete in both a qualitative and temporal sense. The complainant must allege an injury to himself that is “distinct and palpable,” . . . as opposed to merely “[a]bstract,” . . . and the alleged harm must be actual or imminent, not “conjectural” or “hypothetical.” *** Further, the litigant must satisfy the “causation” and “redressability” prongs of the Art. III minima by showing that the injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” and “is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”
Texas met those requirements, showing an “injury in fact” that is “distinct and palpable,” that “can be traced to the challenged action” and that can be “redressed by a favorable decision.” Texas was not just whining how “another State conducts its elections.” This was not a case of “they ought to have used pink paper, not blue paper,” or “the polls should have been open an extra two hours.” Such inconsequential statements would have been claims of the type the Court’s statement described.
What Texas alleged was more profound: The defendant states engaged in unconstitutional conduct to create the circumstances by which Democrat activists (and, possibly, foreign agents) could commit fraud in order to hand the election to Biden. Understood the proper way, not only does Texas, in which Trump won, have a say in what those states did, so does every Trump voter in America.
It’s indisputable that the defendant states unconstitutionally changed their election laws through court action or settlement agreements. Additionally, in each defendant state, there is voluminous (and mostly uncontested) evidence that these rule changes allowed Democrats to engage in massive fraud to shift their citizens’ votes from Trump to Biden. . . .
That being the case, why did the Supreme Court punt? One theory is that it wants “clean” cases that come up through the state court systems. Another theory is that the Court believes that this is an issue that legislatures, not the Court, should address. . . .
“The Supreme Court is after justice, of course, but primarily they are after making sure the Supreme Court survives – that’s their institution and that’s their duty,” Morris told Saturday’s “The Count.” “I believe the Supreme Court was sent a message by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party during the election.
“And the message was: ‘If you overturn this election, we will pack you, and make your Court basically meaningless.’” . . .
“And just ask yourself: Who raised the issue of Court packing? We didn’t. Why would the Democrats raise an issue that was hurting them? We would never bring it up; we never thought of packing the Court. They did.”
Morris concluded, “it was a systemic effort, that succeeded, to intimidate the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Federal election records show that Murdoch has donated to far-left Democratic politicians including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner and even Hillary Clinton, for whom he hosted a fundraiser in 2006, just preceding her first presidential campaign. . . .
Glenn Beck, a mainstream and popular conservative commentator tossed from Fox’s evening line-up, said he was prohibited from criticizing George Soros on his show.
His claim was perhaps demonstrated as true this past September, when Fox News hosts cut off former Speaker Newt Gingrich, after he started discussing Soros funded initiatives.
The transcript of that exchange was eerie and further portrays Fox News’ true political allegiances:
"I'm not sure we need to bring George Soros into this," said co-host Melissa Francis.
"I was going to say you get the last word, Speaker," Fox host Harris Faulkner said.
"He paid for it. I mean, why can't we discuss the fact that millions of dollars..." Gingrich said before co-host Marie Harf responded.
"No, he didn't. I agree with Melissa. George Soros doesn't need to be a part of this conversation," Harf said.
"OK. So, it's verboten [to talk about Soros]," Gingrich replied.
"OK. We're going to move on," Faulkner said.
The inclusion of this transcript herein is not an attempt to peddle an erroneous Soros conspiracy theory. Rather, it is merely meant to illuminate that Fox News may be prohibiting criticism of one the most prolific radical left-wing donors in this country’s history. Why? Perhaps because they are sympathetic to the liberal causes he so intensely supports.
Soros, apparently, is not the only topic of discussion barred from Fox’s airwaves. Long-time Fox contributor Dick Morris stated that “Fox always tried to tell [him] never to criticize China when you’re on our air. [He couldn’t] believe the censorship that goes on [there].”
In 2013, Fox News dropped Dick Morris after he confidently predicted that Mitt Romney would win in a “landslide,” among other comical prognostications. Newsmax has so little respect for its viewers that it’s now airing Morris’ hopium, including his wildly inaccurate predictions that Republicans would win the midterms in a “wipeout” and cause “the extinction” of the Democratic Party.
Morris is the host of the weekend Newsmax program Dick Morris Democracy and the network’s supposed elections expert.
Newsmax host Dick Morris is still in the habit of being massively wrong in election prognostications, predicting that the GOP would get as many as 270 seats in the House and get to about 52-55 seats in the Senate.
The election happened, and Morris's predictions were comically off the mark, as the GOP only got to 222 House seats and lost a Senate seat, thereby putting them at 49.
On his Newsmax show Saturday, the comically wrong blowhard Dick Morris predicted that far-right QAnon conspiracist and Capitol Insurrection participant Tina Forte (R) would beat incumbent progressive sensation Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) this fall in the 14th Congressional District of New York. The race is rated by political prognosticators as Safe D.
Later in the same Dick Morris Democracy program, the host interviewed Forte.
From the 07.23.2022 edition of Newsmax TV’s Dick Morris Democracy:
