Kayleigh McEnany

Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg On Colorado’s Judicial Activism

Published by Papa Giorgio

Kayleigh McEnany, a former White House press secretary in the Trump administration, tore into the Colorado Supreme Court over its recent decision. [….] McEnany, who was guest hosting “The Ingraham Angle,” spoke with former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg about the left’s shameless attempt to delegitimize the Supreme Court.

Mr. Wisenberg is no fan of “The Don,” however, his analysis is a recent addition to the Colorado Upper Court’s ruling. This is from CONSERVATIVE BRIEF and the transcript can be found on their site.

A bit of a bio on Solomon Wisenberg via WIKI:

  • Solomon Louis Wisenberg (born June 8, 1954) is an American lawyer, legal analyst, and former Chief of the Financial Institution Fraud Unit in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas. From 1997 to 1999, he served as Associate and Deputy Independent Counsel under Kenneth W. Starr during the Whitewater Investigation & Clinton-Lewinsky Investigations. Wisenberg was a frequent commentator on legal issues related to the investigation of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that resulted in a finding of insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

These Major Bombshells Are A Problem For Biden

Published by Papa Giorgio

Creepy uncle Joe says it’s not true. Hunter Biden’s own lawyer says it is:

  • “We knew about Hunter. We knew about Joe’s brother, James. But Comer revealing that it could be six or seven Biden family members is massive news.”

Maybe this is why Hunter’s lawyer said opposing things in their counter-suit (CONSERVATIVE REVIEW):

Hunter Biden’s lawyers claim John Paul Mac Isaac invaded the troubled presidential son’s privacy by providing his computer files to allies of former president Donald Trump and members of the media before the 2020 election. The countersuit is a response to Mac Isaac’s lawsuit against Biden and various news outlets who accused the repairman of stealing the computer.

Mac Isaac has said Biden dropped off his laptop for repairs in April 2019 but never came back to retrieve it. The repairman says he reviewed the laptop’s contents and, troubled by what he saw, provided a copy of the laptop hard drive to the FBI in late 2019. He then gave a copy of the computer to Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who later shared the documents with the New York Post and other news outlets.

[….]

RPT COMMENT #1 —  So Hunter’s lawyer IS admitting the laptop is Hunter’s!

[….]

“This is not an admission by Mr. Biden that Mac Isaac (or others) in fact possessed any particular laptop containing electronically stored data belonging to Mr. Biden,” the court filing says. “Rather, Mr. Biden simply acknowledges that at some point, Mac Isaac obtained electronically stored data, some of which belonged to Mr. Biden.”

[….]

RPT COMMENT #2 — ohhh… look at this dog-faced pony soldier lawyer try to legalese* out of admitting the laptop was Hunter’s!

*Attorneys use Legalese to be able to tell lies about regular people without the regular people being able to understand what’s said about them.

Some RBG Commentary (The Left Blows a Gasket)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Before I begin… I wish to quote an old post of mine — dated

What Does The Lesser of Two Evils Mean? (An Open Letter)

….There are other hints that morality exists in the macro sense in Trump. A friend said that by supporting Trump I become “one of them.” And trust me, for those that love Hayek and Sowell and Smith, these are moral positions:

  • Stopping 20[+] years of anti-Constitutionalist judges is not becoming one of them;
  • Reducing taxes is not becoming one of them;
  • Border control is not becoming one of them;
  • Reducing regulations is not becoming one of them;
  • Fighting and pushing back the worst of the Islamic faith is not becoming one of them;
  • Supporting law enforcement and putting in a DOJ head that supports them as well is not becoming one of them;
  • Rejecting climate change legislation is not becoming one of them;
  • Rejecting cultural Marxism is not becoming one of them;
  • etc., etc.

In other words, my Christian principles are not in play for my vote. In fact… having studied the issue of economics and free-markets, if-anything, my Christian principles want to increase freedom in the markets as well as slow the progress in other areas of progressive growth. These ARE moral positions. (I say slow by-the-by because Trump does not have ideal views in every area. And?) Another friend notes that “we must realize that a private vote for someone is not the same as a public endorsement.” Yep……

Larry takes calls on the Supreme Court Vacancy.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, talks to FOX Business’ Elizabeth MacDonald about the Senate having enough votes to move forward on a Supreme Court nominee.

Joe Biden said packing the Supreme Court was a “legitimate questions,” but refuses to give his stance.

Why doesn’t this “wish” get Democrats attention?

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shared her opposition to court-packing proposals that have gained traction among Democratic 2020 contenders in an interview published Wednesday.

Ginsburg said the Court functions well at the current number of personnel in a wide-ranging conversation with NPR, and panned prior efforts to expand the panel as quixotic.

“Nine seems to be a good number,” the justice said. “It’s been that way for a long time.”

“I think it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Court,” Ginsburg said elsewhere in her remarks…..

(DAILY CALLER)

Democrats and the Media started to meltdown this morning as Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany revealed President Trump’s plans to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. WATCH McConnell TORCH Dems for threatening to destroy the country

The Hodge Twins discuss AOC’s “dying wish” video:

Tucker Carlson shows how the left is threatening violence over Trump’s Supreme Court nomination.

‘Ingraham Angle’ host surveys Roe v. Wade and its lasting impact.

Trump’s impending Supreme Court pick drives the left wild.

Supreme Court becomes key issue in 2020 election; ‘The Five’ weighs in.

ICYMI on the Senate Floor: Cruz SLAMS Schumer, Democrats’ Threats to Pack SCOTUS

BRUTAL (Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany Destroys Nancy Pelosi)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Press Sec. Kayleigh McEnany started the White House briefing this morning with a little video of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi illegally getting her hair done and the media had to just sit in silence and watch. WATCH Biden take a question from a Fox reporter and INSTANTLY regrets it.

Erica Kious denies Nancy Pelosi’s claim that she was set up after video surfaces of the House speaker’s maskless visit.

Dr. Harvey Risch | Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the MSM

Published by Papa Giorgio

Do not let what Dr. Risch said get lost in the below. He said 70-to-100-thousand people could be alive today is we had treated our patients with the Hydroxychloroquine protocols other countries have followed. 70,000 to 100,000!

Dennis Prager has Dr. Harvey Risch (MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health) on his program to discuss the issue of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), its use, and the seemingly political fallout from the media and the Left (Democrats in Congress and Democrat governors). There is also discussion of how or why there is pressure or push-back against it’s use. I would say partly because of “TDS” (Trump Derangement Syndrome), but also BIG-PHARMA. Otherwise known as “Crony-Corporatism”. Previously Dennis discussed his earlier NEWSWEEK article.

Dennis also mentions in passing the French United Nations official, who has served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Special Adviser on Innovative Financing for Development in the UN and chairman of UNITAID — PHILIPPE DOUSTE-BLAZY. But shortly after discussing the issue Dennis asks the $64,000 question, “has the ban on HCQ led to deaths?” [adapted]… that shorter response is isolated here:

(WOW!)

While Dr. Risch did not want to impugn motives, Robert Kennedy Jr. was not so coy:

The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine.  He owns half the patent.  He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that.

So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail.  And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money.  They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability.  Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal.  They have zero liability.  And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.

(Alan Dershowitz’ And Jfk Jr.’s Debate)

Before moving on, I recommend the BANNON WAR ROOM video that discusses Dr. Risch’s appearance on CNN (fuller CNN video HERE):

THE WASHINGTON TIMES notes the percentages of lives saved worldwide in their story entitled

….On July 23, 2020, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) provided the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration copious amounts of data showing, among other things, that countries using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are attaining far lower mortality rates than the United States. “The mortality rate from COVID-19 in countries that allow access to HCQ,” said the AAPS, “is only one-tenth the mortality rate of countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States.”

Did you catch that? One-tenth the mortality rate means that our country’s current death count of about 160,000 could be and perhaps should be, as low as 16,000.

Oh, but I assume you’ve been told that the AAPS is a “fringe group” of “conservative” doctors who should be discredited? 

Well, aside from the fact that such a claim is a textbook example of the Socratic fallacy of an ad hominem attack, i.e., “shooting the messenger rather than attending to the message,” there’s more, lots more.

First, there’s the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan, which recently published a study involving thousands of patients where HCQ proved to be both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19. This study reports reducing mortality by 50%. Did you catch that? Fifty percent. 

Then, there’s the Palmer Foundation report published last week highlighting the Indian slum of Dharavi. This is Asia’s biggest and densest slum, housing more than a million people. In the early days of the pandemic, Dharavi suffered a cluster outbreak. Doctors report containing it by using proactive measures, “including the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis (preventive) treatment.” As a result, Dharavi’s COVID-19 infection rate dropped drastically from April through June, and in July, new infections were very low, almost reaching zero on July 9.”  

Yes, you read that correctly. “Almost reaching zero.” 

Still the stuff of right-wing nut jobs, you smirk? 

Well, there is Harvey, A. Risch, MD, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health (generally not known as a bastion of conservative political thought), who recently wrote in Newsweek magazine: “I am … flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily.” …..

(WT goes on to note some of the studies)

AGAIN, besides the studies Dr. Risch mentions (12), the total worldwide that shows benefite to using Plaquinel are 68 studies (41 peer reviewed). One of the better posts on this topic comes from REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE — of which some of these graphs are from or updated from the MAIN SITE tallying all this:

Death Becomes the MSM

Okay, I just want to say that we have heard many media types and Democrat Lefties say that by the President touting Hydroxychloroquine he is killing people. My first example comes from Neil Cavuto:

Fox News host Neil Cavuto warned viewers that hydroxychloroquine “will kill you” after Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that he was taking the unproven drug to prevent Covid-19 infection.

Mr Cavuto, who appeared stunned at the US president’s decision, said he was not making a “political point, but a life-and-death point”.

“If you are in a risky population here, and you are taking this as a preventative treatment … it will kill you. I cannot stress enough. This will kill you,” said the Fox News host…..

(INDEPENDENT – May 19th)

But all this is based on a Lancent study published May 22nd (that media heads caught wind of a couple days early)… the only problem? The entire study was faked — here is a fair dealing with it via MEDCRAM. (A previous post where the known issues with “peer review” is noted: Peer-Review Issues | Sharyl Attkinsson). Here is the indomitable Press Secretary tearing shit up:

So the above and below “concern” about a drug many-many millions of people have taken for decades, safely, ALL OF A SUDDEN is a health emergency. I wonder why? (I refer you to the already posted Washington Times article title above.) The “blood on the hands” argument is really more apt in the 70-100-thousand lives that very possibly could have been saved had our country done what other countries had… save the MSM Derangement with Trump.

Here is some more examples of what I am saying:

Brianna Keilar spars with Trump campaign spokesman, says hydroxychloroquine ‘kills people’. Laura Ingraham gets reaction from Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, regarding CNN’s anchor who is accused of ‘ludicrous’ claim about hydroxychloroquine.

(Decent montage) The discredited and subsequently retracted hydroxychloroquine study had hardly appeared in Lancet magazine before CNN pounced on it with great eagerness to try to prove President Donald Trump wrong. This is yet another of their horribly WRONG reports on this treatment which on July 3 was contradicted by a Henry Ford Health System study which showed that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduced mortality among COVID-19 patients. Once again, CNN WRONG and Trump RIGHT!

CNN’s John Harwood went after President Donald Trump for “extending false hope” and “recklessly” touting unproven coronavirus treatment hydroxychloroquine, after a study published Friday revealed the drug is linked to “increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues.”

Medical journal The Lancet’s study found that there was a 34 percent increase in death and a 137 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias in those who received hydroxychloroquine alone. There was also a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias for those given the drug with and an additional antibiotic.

CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen explained that although other studies exposed the potential dangers linked to the drug, the Lancet’s is much larger.

“This new one looks at 671 hospitals over six continents. The one before was looking at 25 hospitals,” Cohen said. “This is a very, very large study. And what they found was increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues. Now, these were hospitalized patients, some quite ill.”

She reiterated Trump’s claim that these studies look at sick people taking the drug, while he is healthy and taking it as a preventative measure, but questioned that if hydroxychloroquine has any positive effect at all if does not help the infected.

They then played a clip of the president’s “reckless” promotion of the drug, during which he calls hydroxychloroquine “a gift from heaven” but admits he is not a doctor.

“Increasingly, this study gives the impression that this president was extending false hope to people and he has gotten negative judgment from the American people for his handling of coronavirus, this is not going to make that any better,” CNN White House correspondent John Harwood added after the clip aired…..

(MEDIA’ITE – May 22nd)

This comes by way of THE TENNESSEE STAR:

Metro Nashville At-Large Council Member Sharon Hurt said Wednesday during a virtual meeting of the Joint Public Safety and Health Committee that there should be stronger legislation for those not wearing masks and suggested they be charged with murder or attempted murder.

Hurt said that she works for an organization that, “If they pass the virus, then they are tried for murder or attempted murder.”

Hurt thinks the same standard should apply to the general public.

“This person who may very well pass this virus that’s out in the air because they’re not wearing a mask is basically doing the same thing to someone who contracts it and dies from it,” she said.

“Maybe there needs to be stronger legislation to say that if you do not wear a mask, and you subject exposure of this virus to someone else then there will be some stronger penalty as it is in other viruses that are exposed,” the council member added…..

(read it all)

Masks? What Does The Science Say? (Ben Swann CDC Update)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Remember, the same people that tell us there is more than two sexes and that we can change the planets temperature are now telling us the best way to reach herd immunity is by as little contact as possible) I clipped this just to isolate the studies aspect of the presentation, the entire segment can be seen at FOX’S YouTube Channel here (it is worth watching). BTW, I watch segments from Cuamo, and Tapper at times to get another perspective (to test my own views). I sent the full segment of this Laura Ingraham clip to a friend, and even the mention of Fox News is considered “pot stirring.” If someone sent me an MSNBC clip or a CNN clip, I would not respond with such bias. What is funny is that these same people will go around and bemoan that our society is soo split right now, not realizing that they refuse to go out of their safe zone to even consider other points of views. In other words, their Leftism in labeling other ideas as “sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigoted” as a way to reject even polite conversation is legend on the Left. I haven’t had cable for over 15-years, so I cannot watch any of this minus YouTube. But thank Gawd for Fox… while still a corporate entity, at least they offer a different opinion from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, NETFLIX, HULU, etc. — media and Hollywood.

There is no health crisis in California. Are we to break a Constitutional right to happiness (make a living, own land, a business) every flu season?

CALIFORNIA FLU DEATHS

  • 2018: 6,917
  • 2017: 6,340
  • 2016: 5,981
  • 2015: 6,188
  • 2014: 5,970
  • 2005: 7,553

Corona deaths are at least 25% lower than reported number, I argue well for even lower. So with the safe Birx and states that have gone through their numbers… there are a total of 5,696 deaths (7,595 official as of now) in California. See more:

[Facebook’s] so called “fact checkers” have struck again, claiming that my report on the science that proves that wearing facemasks, especially in non-medical settings does almost nothing to prevent the spread of a virus, is false… citing that it was based on old information. Now, I’m reporting on a new study created in conjunction with the World Health Organization and published by the CDC from less than 60 days ago that once again proves that there is no evidence that wearing face masks in public prevents the spread of flu-like viruses. I’m also going to show you why the Facebook fact-checking system cannot be trusted. Link to the CDC published study. This study was conducted in preparation for the development of guidelines by the World Health Organization on the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza in nonmedical settings.

Here is the CDC STUDY: “Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures”

ABSTRACT

There were 3 influenza pandemics in the 20th century, and there has been 1 so far in the 21st century. Local, national, and international health authorities regularly update their plans for mitigating the next influenza pandemic in light of the latest available evidence on the effectiveness of various control measures in reducing transmission. Here, we review the evidence base on the effectiveness of nonpharmaceutical personal protective measures and environmental hygiene measures in nonhealthcare settings and discuss their potential inclusion in pandemic plans. Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning. 

[….]

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of personal protective measures on influenza virus transmission, including hand hygiene, respiratory etiquette, and face masks, and a systematic review of surface and object cleaning as an environmental measure (Table 1). We searched 4 databases (Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) for literature in all languages. We aimed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of each measure for laboratory-confirmed influenza outcomes for each of the measures because RCTs provide the highest quality of evidence. For respiratory etiquette and surface and object cleaning, because of a lack of RCTs for laboratory-confirmed influenza, we also searched for RCTs reporting effects of these interventions on influenza-like illness (ILI) and respiratory illness outcomes and then for observational studies on laboratory-confirmed influenza, ILI, and respiratory illness outcomes. For each review, 2 authors (E.Y.C.S. and J.X.) screened titles and abstracts and reviewed full texts independently.

[….]

HAND HYGIENE

…The effect of hand hygiene combined with face masks on laboratory-confirmed influenza was not statistically significant (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73–1.13; I2 = 35%, p = 0.39)…

[….]

We further analyzed the effect of hand hygiene by setting because transmission routes might vary in different settings. We found 6 studies in household settings examining the effect of hand hygiene with or without face masks, but the overall pooled effect was not statistically significant (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86–1.27; I2 = 57%, p = 0.65) (Appendix Figure 4) (11–15,17). The findings of 2 studies in school settings were different (Appendix Figure 5). A study conducted in the United States (16) showed no major effect of hand hygiene, whereas a study in Egypt (18) reported that hand hygiene reduced the risk for influenza by >50%. A pooled analysis of 2 studies in university residential halls reported a marginally significant protective effect of a combination of hand hygiene plus face masks worn by all residents (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21–1.08; I2 = 0%, p = 0.08) (Appendix Figure 6) (9,10).

[….]

However, results from our meta-analysis on RCTs did not provide evidence to support a protective effect of hand hygiene against transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. One study did report a major effect, but in this trial of hand hygiene in schools in Egypt, running water had to be installed and soap and hand-drying material had to be introduced into the intervention schools as part of the project (18)…..

RESPIRATORY ETIQUETTE

Respiratory etiquette is defined as covering the nose and mouth with a tissue or a mask (but not a hand) when coughing or sneezing, followed by proper disposal of used tissues, and proper hand hygiene after contact with respiratory secretions (30). Other descriptions of this measure have included turning the head and covering the mouth when coughing and coughing or sneezing into a sleeve or elbow, rather than a hand. 

[….]

….Respiratory etiquette is often listed as a preventive measure for respiratory infections. However, there is a lack of scientific evidence to support this measure. Whether respiratory etiquette is an effective nonpharmaceutical intervention in preventing influenza virus transmission remains questionable, and worthy of further research.

FACE MASKS

In our systematic review, we identified 10 RCTs that reported estimates of the effectiveness of face masks in reducing laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the community from literature published during 1946–July 27, 2018. In pooled analysis, we found no significant reduction in influenza transmission with the use of face masks (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51–1.20; I2 = 30%, p = 0.25) (Figure 2). …. None of the household studies reported a significant reduction in secondary laboratory-confirmed influenza virus infections in the face mask group (11–13,15,17,34,35)….

[….]

Disposable medical masks (also known as surgical masks) are loose-fitting devices that were designed to be worn by medical personnel to protect accidental contamination of patient wounds, and to protect the wearer against splashes or sprays of bodily fluids (36). There is limited evidence for their effectiveness in preventing influenza virus transmission either when worn by the infected person for source control or when worn by uninfected persons to reduce exposure. Our systematic review found no significant effect of face masks on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza….

SURFACE AND OBJECT CLEANING

For the search period from 1946 through October 14, 2018, we identified 2 RCTs and 1 observational study about surface and object cleaning measures for inclusion in our systematic review (40–42). One RCT conducted in day care nurseries found that biweekly cleaning and disinfection of toys and linen reduced the detection of multiple viruses, including adenovirus, rhinovirus, and respiratory syncytial virus in the environment, but this intervention was not significant in reducing detection of influenza virus, and it had no major protective effect on acute respiratory illness (41). Another RCT found that hand hygiene with hand sanitizer together with surface disinfection reduced absenteeism related to gastrointestinal illness in elementary schools, but there was no major reduction in absenteeism related to respiratory illness (42). A cross-sectional study found that passive contact with bleach was associated with a major increase in self-reported influenza (40).

[….]

Although we found no evidence that surface and object cleaning could reduce influenza transmission, this measure does have an established impact on prevention of other infectious diseases (42). 

Did Trump Call For An Assassination of His Rival?

Published by Papa Giorgio

HotAir comments on Dan Rather’s rather obnoxious indignation:

Disgraced news anchor Dan Rather wrote a post on Facebook yesterday attacking Trump’s comments about “Second Amendment people.” Here’s a sample:

No trying-to-be objective and fair journalist, no citizen who cares about the country and its future can ignore what Donald Trump said today. When he suggested that “The Second Amendment People” can stop Hillary Clinton he crossed a line with dangerous potential. By any objective analysis, this is a new low and unprecedented in the history of American presidential politics. This is no longer about policy, civility, decency or even temperament. This is a direct threat of violence against a political rival. It is not just against the norms of American politics, it raises a serious question of whether it is against the law. If any other citizen had said this about a Presidential candidate, would the Secret Service be investigating?…

To anyone who still pretends this is a normal election of Republican against Democrat, history is watching. And I suspect its verdict will be harsh. Many have tried to do a side-shuffle and issue statements saying they strongly disagree with his rhetoric but still support the candidate. That is becoming woefully insufficient. The rhetoric is the candidate.

There’s a lot more like this but it all has the same urgent tone of righteous indignation. This Facebook post shows everything that was wrong with Dan Rather as a journalist. There’s no effort to understand or explain the subject he’s discussing. Was Trump really making a threat here? Was he talking about the NRA? Was this a joke Trump should never have made? He doesn’t even bother to quote more than four words of what Trump said that prompted this response….

Before continuing, not how the story is presented, and then see Kayleigh McEnany rightly note the correct view of what Trump said:

Using the Left’s logic, however, we see that Hillary called for the assassination of Obama in 2008 (POWERLINE!):

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”…

Friday was not the first time Mrs. Clinton referred to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in such a context. In March, she told Time magazine: “Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A.

Let’s see whether the typical media double standard kicks in with Trump’s comments today.