Presidential Debate Post-Mortem, Part II

What’s your take on last night’s 1st Presidential debate? Please let me know in the comments below.


Apparently, Lester “Factless Fact Checker” Holt didn’t get my memo with a list of questions to ask at last night’s debate. Nothing about immigration, sanctuary cities, or Hillary’s remark that the whole world has a “right” to immigrate to the United States? Nothing about Hillary’s plan to raise the estate tax to the stratosphere while she and Bill put their assets into trusts to avoid ANY estate tax? Coincidence? I think not.

Lester, for a brilliant legal analyst, which you demonstrated that you are, by your completely clueless and inaccurate statement regarding the constitutionality of stop and frisk, you certainly showed a stunning lack of curiosity about the legal issues swirling around Hillary; specifically, obstruction of justice, violation of the Espionage Act, lying under oath and misleading Congress, felonies all. Donald Trump’s having the audacity to suggest that we need to vet presidential candidates to make sure that they are Constitutionally eligible, as clearly offensive as that is to you and other members of the leftist media, is not a crime. I know that comes as a shock to the Obama Kool-aid drinkers like you. I also know that leftists have little use for the Constitution, which they see as quaint document written by dead white European males at best, or like Obama, at worst, an obstacle to his “remaking” America into a socialist paradise.

Mr. Trump did what he needed to do in last night’s debate, and as I stated here, no minds were changed. The good news is that, for a smart person like Donald, this first debate was a terrific learning experience. When you consider that Mr. Trump, compared to Hillary who has been in politics for 30+ years, was virtual neophyte in this arena, and he had also battle the moderator – two against one–he did very well.

Still there are some areas of opportunity on some answers. Here a few suggestions.


We knew, and I’m sure that the Trump campaign knew, that Hillary would raise this one, not only because she needs to neutralize her own politically-expedient vote for the war, but to try to rattle him.

Suggested Answer: “I am on the record for opposing intervention in Iraq back in 2003. I know that Sec.Clinton and many members of the media say I’m not. That’s not accurate, but let’s think about this. The only reason we are talking about this ancient history is because Sec.Clinton is trying to escape from her vote in favor of the war, which she now calls another one of her ‘mistakes.’ I was a private citizen. I wasn’t privy to the national security briefings and other information a U.S. Senator would have had. It’s apples and oranges. Of course, we recently learned that Hillary never took the mandatory training State Dept. employees were supposed to take on handling classified information, so maybe she never looked at that information either. I don’t know. I do know I was not in Congress in 2003.”


At the end of the debate, Donald Trump responded to Hillary’s repetition of Megyn Kelly’s rap about Trump’s negative comments about women, by alluding to the fact that he could have said some tough stuff, but decided not to do that because it wouldn’t be nice. He needs to go there. It’s possible to do it without having it backfire on you.

Suggested Answer: “Sec. Clinton, I’m sorry but I can’t let you pretend to have the moral high ground on the treatment of women. It makes me sad that we are even talking about this sort of non-issue, frankly, but let’s be honest here: you are no champion of women. I will just ask the American people (look at the audience and the moderator with hands open in a very inviting gesture): what is worse, a few ill-advised comments on entertainment shows while I was a private citizen or orchestrating the personal destruction of women who made the mistake of getting involved with Bill Clinton? What would Paula Jones say? You said that women who claim that they were victims of sexual abuse deserve to be believed. Let me just say that when you said that, that came as a major shock to Juanita Broaddrick.”

Let the millennials use the Google to figure out who these women are. It’s risky, because any time Hillary can play the victim, it benefits her, but he can’t let her skate on the “issue” of “war on women.” A lot of smart pundits disagree with me, and think Trump shouldn’t “go there.” He said this morning that he didn’t want to do it in front of Chelsea. That sounds like the mean evil bastard that the Left always talks about, doesn’t it?


Suggested answer: “Oh yes, Hillary, and I’m sure the Russians had no interest in your completely insecure server that contained Top Secret information.”


The email answer response was OK, but I think he needs to work in the fact of the Clintons’ hypocrisy on estate taxes.

Suggested answer: “I have said I will release my tax returns when you release the emails that you and your agents destroyed, and then took the 5th about, but speaking of taxes. You are constantly railing agains the rich not paying their “fair share,” and you want to raise the estate tax to 65%. Bloomberg reported that you and your husband put most of your assets into trusts to completely avoid the estate tax. So here we go again: do as I say, not as I do.


Suggested answer: “In the last debate, you said that everyone in this country has a problem with “implicit bias,” which reminds a lot of us of your calling half of my supporters “deplorables,” and “irredeemable,” which is not true, and is extremely offensive. Apparently, that is still your opinion of a large percentage, if not a majority of the American people. That is a disgrace, Madam.”

We are living in a time when we have gone through the looking glass. Hillary Clinton is a  breathtakingly corrupt, congenital liar who, but for the equally corrupt Obama Regime, would be negotiating a plea bargain.

As we discussed on last Sunday’s edition of The Teri O’Brien Show, (you can listen RIGHT on this page by using the player in the upper right of this page), the bizarre immunity deals given by the Department of (In)Justice to the perps in her evidence destruction scheme make sense if you look at them as de facto pardons, given because for Obama to issue actual pardons would acknowledge the crimes, in which he is complicit. That she can be the nominee of a major political party demonstrates the success of the Left at dumbing down the population, through the education and media cartels. Hillary was correct last night when she said that we need to vote as if our future depends on it because it does.

What’s your take on last night’s debate?


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

The Teri O'Brien Show

%d bloggers like this: