Quantcast
Connect with us

WATCH: Carly Fiorina goes bonkers after desperate attack on Hillary Clinton’s marriage

Published

on

In an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, following the so-called “undercard” debate for the GOP also-rans, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina launched a vicious and personal attack on Hillary Clinton that clearly disgusted the Hardball host.

During the debate, Fiorina sniped at Clinton without mentioning her name, saying, “Unlike another woman in this race, I actually love spending time with my husband.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Pressed by Matthews whether the Clinton’s have a “real marriage,” Fiorina smirked and repeated, “They’ve been married for a really long time,” over and over again as he rephrased the question.

After being accused by Matthews of avoiding answering the question, Fiorina went off the rails as she attacked the Democratic front-runner while an appalled Matthews looked on.

“There are so many other things we could talk about like the fact that Mrs. Clinton wants to go to the White House — she’s qualified for the big house,” Fiorina said as she dropped all pretense of fake smiling for the camera.”She should be prosecuted. She has not been prosecuted for things that took a great warrior out of office, David Petraeus.”

“So let’s talk about that, Chris,” Fiorina continued. “Let’s talk about how amazing it is that this woman, that cannot be trusted, who should have been prosecuted by now, has just raked in more money than any single candidate.”

Watch the clip below, via MSNBC Twitter:

ADVERTISEMENT


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Alabama Republican: ‘I want to see more people’ get coronavirus

Published

on

On Thursday, Alabama Senate President Pro Tempore Del Marsh suggested that he wanted more people to get coronavirus — because he thinks America would develop "herd immunity" and reduce the spread enough to protect more vulnerable populations.

"I'm not as concerned so much as the number of cases. In fact, quite honestly, I want to see more people, because we start reaching an immunity the more people have it and get through it," said Marsh. "I don't want any deaths, as few as possible, say, I get it, but those people who are susceptible to the disease, especially more serious pre-existing conditions, elderly population, those folks, we need to, you know, do all we can to protect them. But I'm not concerned, I want to make sure that everybody can receive care."

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘They deserve it’: Republican strategist tells GOP it’s their own fault for going down with Trump because ‘they know better’

Published

on

Republican strategist Susan del Percio said that there is no excuse for GOP members who failed to do the right thing and fight back against President Donald Trump when they had the opportunity.

Speaking to MSNBC's Joy Reid Thursday, del Percio called Trump "the anchor" around the GOP's necks, "dragging them down."

"But, you know what, they deserve it," she continued. "There are Republicans out there that deserve this because they know better. They should have been better on impeachment. They should have been holding him accountable all along. Now they are scared and worried about themselves. Well, boohoo, you brought it on. there's no excuse."

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

‘The monarch has taken a body blow’: Ex-prosecutor explains why Court ruling is devastating for Trump

Published

on

On MSNBC Thursday, former federal prosecutor John Flannery broke down the implications of the Supreme Court's ruling against President Donald Trump on immunity from subpoenas.

"I think what it says is that the monarch has taken a body blow as a result of what will be an historic decision, as we've indicated," said Flannery. "I think that the position of the DA in New York is very special, because he can speed this up in a way that the House can',t and has a specific strength, I think, in this case, that it is criminal."

"The most significant thing about it is this is the first Supreme Court case in which there's ever been agreed that a prosecutor could subpoena a president," added Flannery. "Prior prosecutions have been federal, that have been treated by the Supreme Court. So this is a big difference. The majority of the court, 7-2, basically said, from 1740 on, the public is entitled to the testimony, to the evidence of any person. They said that the documents — the question is the character documents, not the character of the person. In this case, what we have is a situation which I bet that the DA is going to go to the court as soon as possible, move to compel an appearance to their subpoena, and going to have the discussion as to what if anything may be limited or excluded and get production as quickly as possible."

Continue Reading
 
 
You need honest news coverage. Help us deliver it. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1. Go ad-free.
close-image