Relevance deprivation syndrome Hillary Clinton s embarrassing meltdown over Trump

Even Hillary Clinton had to admit that countries need strong borders and that immigration, illegal and legal, has gone too far. I think we need to call it for what it is. There is a legitimate reason to have a debate about things like migration. It went too far, it's been disruptive and destabilizing and it needs to be fixed in a humane way with secure borders that don't torture and kill people. And that's what America has now, Hillary. No one is being killed or tortured on the border. That was happening under the previous administration that was enriching evil human traffickers. Let's bring in Sky News contributor, Koshia Gaydar. Koshia, Hillary Clinton, I mean, she has got some issues that TDS is off the charts. What is she hoping to achieve attending conferences like this and pushing this agenda? I mean, at her age, she's done with politics. What exactly is the point? I can only guess that it's some kind of relevance deprivation syndrome. She wants to be relevant. She's already been a senator, first lady and a senator and secretary of state. She's got grandkids. She's had an amazing life that 99.9% of the people would never get to experience the things she's experienced, leaving aside what she's done policy wise. And she should bow out, stage left. Why is she still there at this conference? And she just seems like the most miserable human on earth. And throughout much of that experience that you just described, she hasn't seemed particularly happy. And I don't know, you would think in these golden years, she would be never enjoying life. Even Joe is off doing God knows what he's doing. Now, I featured AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on last night's Lefties Losing It. And she managed to humiliate herself again in Munich with another incoherent attempt to answer basic questions. I've already played you her trying to talk about Taiwan, Mexico, America. And she attempted to fact check Marco Rubio's 100% factual comment about the origins of American cowboys. That didn't go too well. And she tries to make another profound point here that backfires. We look at what happened in Venezuela, for example. It is not a remark on who Maduro was as a leader. He cancelled elections. He was an anti-democratic leader. That doesn't mean that we can kidnap a head of state and engage in acts of war just because the nation is below the equator. And that was a big point south of the equator. I mean, AOC not only needs to brush up on economics, history, but also geography, it seems, because she has no clue. And those idiots in the crowd clapping along like they just heard some brilliant point. What can you say? She was so close. She was so close because there is a legitimate critique that far more serious people than her make about the Maduro operation. And leaving aside what the premise was, I would say the pretext of it, you are going in and taking out a head of state, illegitimate or otherwise. She could have left it there and actually had some legitimacy. But then she had to add in that south of the border. And I think that that's code for some kind of racial undertone because it's brown and black. And sorry to our friends in Australia who are south of the equator. They don't count or South Africa or Chile or Argentina or many other countries that aren't black and brown dominant to use their lingo. She forgot about that, swept them under the rug. And that is the only frame that she will fall into. What is the broader point there? Are they still arguing that removing Maduro, this dictator, this man who's destroyed what was once a wealthy country into one where millions have fled? They're still arguing that's a bad thing, this audacious plan that they managed to pull off without losing a single American life. I mean, that argument in itself, I think, is pretty silly. They can't criticize the operation because it really was a feat and the whole world marveled at American military might, which is still present, even though it hadn't been used in that way in some time. So they try to argue on the policy of, oh, you're going into sovereign countries and trying to do something about it. But they're not even really loyal to that point either or justified because you check her record and she's voted for all sorts of intervention elsewhere. So it's only when it doesn't suit them. And I think this might be a shallow point, but I think they love to feign sophistication. The Spanish speakers in America, especially with their pronunciations. That's true. She just wants to talk about that. Yeah, the pronunciations, I think, is all she was interested in there. And oh, yes, I've got some real insight because of that. Now, let's talk about the Epstein files and the Democrats are not happy that despite the media regurgitating their misinformation, the release of these files is damaging the left, including Democrat luminaries like Bill Clinton and billionaires like Reid Hoffman and Bill Gates. But Jen Psaki is still in denial. It is Trump. Yes. And we should everybody should continue to dig more about that. But it is the wealthy, the elites and basically every factor, faction of the world. It's global leaders. It's people in the business sector. It is people in Hollywood, probably. Who knows? It is a bunch of people who think that they can get away with anything. Correct me if I'm wrong, Kosha, but it wasn't that long ago Jen Psaki was characterising anybody who talked about an elite group of abusers running the show as pure non-conspiracy theorists and wackos. And now she is pretty much repeating their lines there. Absolutely. I think the dam has broken. So now there's no denying it. There's the eight million or so emails and all sorts of names, including very prominent Democrat names from her side and other people from all around the world are in there. So she can't deny it anymore. So now they're all glomming on. We talked last week about the MSNBC host. Everybody's glomming on to that reality that there is a superstructure out there of elites that seem to operate with impunity up until now. True. But nobody takes him seriously because her boss was in charge for four years. Many other people have been in charge for years and years before. It's been 20 years since he was convicted and nothing has happened. And even until now, I would note the emails are out, but no arrests have happened. Well, that to me seems remarkable because I haven't obviously read through the millions of documents, but I've read plenty that seem to call for at the very least a thorough investigation. But you would think when you're talking about, I mean, some of the code words are just so obvious where they're talking about beef jerky, for example, and they're not talking about beef jerky. But even in one exchange, Epstein refers to a torture video with someone quite prominent. How is that not being explored further? That just seems again, to me, remarkable. Why would that be? This is really undermining faith in the entire justice system. It really is. And I will say this, even though Jen Psaki missed that point, this really was an issue of the right. And the Trump campaign campaign on this most transparent administration in history drained the swamp and a big part of his base, not all of the base, but a big part of the base. This was the number one issue for them, not because they necessarily care about Epstein or particular people that did things at one point in time, but they do care about that. But it's about what it says about the system and justice and equal justice for all. And given that that hasn't happened either accidentally or by happenstance, the left seems to have sort of taken the issue away from Trump a little bit. And now it's sort of this big amorphous blob and all sorts of people are implicated. And they have certainly lost the higher ground on this issue. I think it's Trump's biggest misstep by some margin when he allowed Tam Bondi to say nothing to say here. There's no charges. The case is closed. And he kind of lost, like you said, this was his issue. This was the issue that his base cared about. And by doing that, he also cast himself in a guilty light. People are wondering, why doesn't he want this investigated? Is it because he's in the files in a way that he doesn't want explored? And from what we've seen, that is not the case. In fact, the files show that he was in contact with law enforcement, encouraging them to investigate Jeffrey Epstein, encouraging them to investigate Ghislaine Maxwell, being really grateful that that issue was being pursued. So it hasn't damaged him that way. But the narrative from much of the media is still that he's been compromised. And I think that's going to hurt him. It will. And I think a lot of the lower information voters who don't know all that, they just see the headlines. They just think, OK, he's a powerful person. He loves women. Everybody knows that about him. And they just lump him in to that category or that he's protecting friends, famous and powerful friends. That's another issue where it's not him, guilt by association. It is a little bit of a head scratcher because this was a- I think we're going to need to have some clarity about the sort of protection Jeffrey Epstein enjoyed throughout his life. And it's been discussed, it's been talked about, and it's almost become now a taboo issue to talk about that. But it's clear he had protection. It is clear that perhaps he was working with certain intelligence agencies that afforded him that protection. And that needs to be fully explored. Otherwise, you're going to see people just completely lose faith in the justice system. Now, let's talk about the Winter Olympics. We've had a few American athletes emoting incoherently about being conflicted about representing America. An incredibly American-born Chinese Olympic star Aileen Gu has also weighed in. She's condemned President Trump's criticism of American skiers who are playing politics. Koshia, I wonder, as Aileen, who's got an incredible amount of media attention, it must be said, adulation, has she ever been asked about China's human rights abuses, like the mistreatment of the Uyghurs, the way the Communist Party there lock up and kill political dissidents? We're talking about real human rights abuses here, not imagined ones. Is that happening? I don't think we're going to be seeing that anytime soon. Just the easy questions. It's easy to bash on the country that everybody wants to bash on. And with her, there's even a bigger topic, too, that she is American. She skis for China. She reportedly gets paid a lot of money from China. China does not allow dual citizenship. She's always been cagey, actually. She hasn't directly been asked what is her citizenship status at some point and doesn't really answer it, though people don't ask them tough questions too often. And so just that makes it even worse, that you're on that stage criticizing America, where you grew up. She grew up in the Bay Area. And it also, I think, reminds us that the Olympics as an institution are not what they once were in this world of just anything goes and you've got immigration and mass migration and people from one place playing for another place. It doesn't have that sort of national pride mystique anymore the way it probably did 100 years ago. No, and according to the National Review, Eileen Gu gets millions from the Chinese government. So I guess it's not surprising that she is not criticizing them and saving that criticism for the Trump administration. Now, before you go, Kosha, the president has posted quite a diatribe mocking Bill Maher, the leftist who he broke bread with last year. The president wrote, it was a total waste of time for me to have this jerk at the White House. He came into the famed Oval Office much different than I thought he would be. He was extremely nervous, had zero confidence in himself and to soothe his nerves immediately within seconds asked for a vodka tonic. And he also wrote, fortunately, his television ratings are so low that nobody will learn about his various fake news statements about me. He is no different than Kimmel, Falun or Colbert, but I must admit, slightly more talented. Well, there you go, it was quite a spray. What do you think's behind this? Is he just upset that Bill Maher still has TDS or did he expect him to become some conservative firebrand after one meeting? It was funny. This definitely goes in the Trump Hall of Fame. I didn't want it to end. Reportedly, in the previous episode, the day before a Bill Maher show, he mocked Trump for a joke that he made on social about Canada and China and China is going to take away the Stanley Cup if Canada cozies up to them. And he was like, well, that was a joke. He didn't get it. And somehow that set him off. Who knows? Maybe there's something else behind the scenes. Maybe I'm just speculating. But the right side often celebrates every time Bill Maher says something. I've always seen this. I think it's almost the bigotry of low expectations. He will repeat something conservatives have said for years. And they all clap him like he's said something profound when it's the most obvious thing ever. And that's probably what's annoying. Thank you so much. Thank you.