As another Lame Cherry exclusive in matter anti matter.
The Lame Cherry long ago established that Hillary Clinton was a Rockefeller Republican minder of Bill Clinton, and now for all liberals, the Lame Cherry presents 3 proofs of this point of your DNC nominee.
From The Hill
It is important to look immediately at Russian motives. If Putin prefers Trump as President, it is because he knows Hillary Clinton is a neocon, and that many of her major contributors would profit from war between Russia and the United States.- Roger Stone
Then we have this gem, in who was it that was praising Ted Cruz?
... Hillary Clinton says she agrees with Ted Cruz on something. ... Hillary Clinton said on Friday afternoon that she agreed with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, ...
And now for the last glaring proof, do you remember Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech in Philadelphia, in Mrs. Clinton PRAISED GEORGE W. BUSH as on September 11th, President Bush43 gave Hillary everything she wanted.
But do not look for it on the DNC site as it is gone. Do not look for it at the Los Angeles Times, as THE TIMES CENSORED IT. The LA Times took out all references to Senator Chuck Schumer, 9 11 and President Bush being praised by Hillary Clinton in giving New York 70 billion dollars without asking why.
Yes it is hilarious that the propaganda media has cut that part of the speech out from historical record, but Hillary Clinton the neocon praised neocon George W. Bush.
Philly.com even has scrubbed it. There has been an absolute censoring of those remarks in whoever transcribed this speech, and it is from the Clinton campaign.
Now why would it be so very important to wipe out what Hillary Clinton did in praising a fellow neocon?
To answer for the liberals, it is because she is a neocon and not a democrat at all.
This from the Los Angeles Times in communication with them in trying to track this down:
(I will add that is seems other sites had the same problem of missing the Bush comments in a most interesting all inventing the fork at the same Hillary moment.)
Hi there,Thanks for bringing this to our attention. We started with Clinton's prepared remarks released by her campaign and then adjusted as she spoke. As far as I was aware, there were only a few minor word changes here and there that we caught, but I will have my staff investigate in the morning to correct if we have missed a section. If that's the case I assure you it was unintentional.Best, Christina
Christina BellantoniLos Angeles Times213-237-7429@cbellantoni
On Aug 1, 2016, at 8:33 PMDear Ms. Bellantoni,
In searching for the transcript of the Hillary Clinton 2016 acceptance speech, I am interested in why the LA Times published transcript does not match the digital recording of the speech?
The Times has omitted the references to Senator Chuck Schumer, 9 11 and President George W. Bush, along with the 70 billion dollars provided New York City in response to the attack.
I am asking the following questions to be answered please. Is the Times aware of this, and why did it omit parts of the speech? If not, then who transcribed this speech as in other postings on other media sites, the same censoring has taken place, as this seems from same source.
I await your answers please as the Time took the time to highlight parts of the speech, and yet this is not the complete speech and it is not noted for readers.