'Delusional' Hillary Clinton savagely mocked for LA riots response: 'Only leftists disable comments'
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was brutally mocked by critics over a "delusional" X post describing the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles as "peaceful demonstrations" while pinning blame on President Donald Trump for sowing "chaos" in southern California.
"Comments off lol. She can't handle the ratio. This is what Hillary Clinton calls 'peaceful demonstrations,'" popular conservative X account Libs of TikTok posted, referring to how comments on Clinton's post were restricted to only permit ones from accounts Clinton follows on the social media platform and accompanied by footage of the destruction in LA.
The message was in response to Clinton posting her first and only comment as of Tuesday morning regarding the Los Angeles riots, describing them as "peaceful demonstrations" before Trump mobilized the National Guard over the weekend.
"California Governor Newsom didn't request the National Guard be deployed to his state following peaceful demonstrations. Trump sent them anyway," Clinton posted on X. "It's the first time in 60 years a president has made that choice. Trump's goal isn't to keep Californians safe. His goal is to cause chaos, because chaos is good for Trump."
Watch: Dem, Media Outlets Insist La Anti-ice Riots Are 'Peaceful' Despite Violence, Injured Cops
The comment sparked widespread backlash among critics, who repeatedly urged the former first lady to "shut up" and accused her of turning off comments to the post amid the backlash.
Read On The Fox News App
"Ever notice that only leftists disable comments?" California Republican Liberty Caucus chair John Dennis posted in response to Clinton.
Social media users were able to respond to Clinton through quote engagements, but not through direct replies as of Tuesday morning.
"These are not peaceful Hillary," Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna posted to X.
"A public figure and a fraud like herself shouldn't be able to lock her replies, @elonmusk," one person responded on X, tagging X owner Elon Musk.
Musk Does Immediate 180 On Trump As Soon As La Riots Rage
"Hey @ElonMusk, can you make it so that government officials and former government officials cannot turn off their replies," another user posted.
"Accusing the National Guard of causing chaos is a serious allegation that requires serious proof. I see none," one social media commenter posted.
"Hillary Clinton is delusional if nothing else," another posted in response to footage of a fire raging as rioters waved a Mexican flag.
Riots broke out in the left-wing city Friday evening after federal law enforcement officials converged on Los Angeles to carry out immigration raids as part of Trump's vow to deport illegal aliens who flooded the nation under the Biden administration. Local leaders such as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, however, quickly denounced the raids in public statements while offering words of support for illegal immigrants in the state.
Protests over the raids soon devolved into violence as rioters targeted federal law enforcement officials, including launching rocks at officials, with videos showing people looting local stores, setting cars on fire and taking over a freeway.
Newsom's Political Future 'Practically Nonexistent' As La Devolves Into Riots, Social Media Critics Predict
Trump announced Saturday that he was deploying 2,000 National Guard members to help quell the violence, bypassing the governor, who typically activates the National Guard. California subsequently filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for efforts to allegedly "federalize the California National Guard."
As the riots continued raging on Monday, the Trump administration deployed hundreds of U.S. Marines to respond to anti-immigration chaos.
"Approximately 700 Marines with 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division will seamlessly integrate with the Title 10 forces under Task Force 51 who are protecting federal personnel and federal property in the greater Los Angeles area," U.S. Northern Command said in a Monday statement.
Trump defended in a Truth Social post early Tuesday morning that if he "didn't 'SEND IN THE TROOPS' to Los Angeles the last three nights, that once beautiful and great City would be burning to the ground right now."
"Much like 25,000 houses burned to the ground in L.A. do to an incompetent Governor and Mayor – Incidentally, the much more difficult, time consuming, and stringent FEDERAL PERMITTING PROCESS is virtually complete on these houses, while the easy and simple City and State Permits are disastrously bungled up and WAY BEHIND SCHEDULE! They are a total mess, and will be for a long time. People want to rebuild their houses. Call your incompetent Governor and Mayor, the Federal permitting is DONE!!!" Trump continued, referring to the thousands of homes that burned in southern California wildfires that gripped the Los Angeles area in January.
Fox News Digital reached out to Clinton's office for comment on the social media post, but did not immediately receive a reply.Original article source: 'Delusional' Hillary Clinton savagely mocked for LA riots response: 'Only leftists disable comments'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
13 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
NATO leaders are set to agree a historic defense spending pledge, but the hike won't apply to all
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — NATO leaders are expected to agree this week that member countries should spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense, except the new and much vaunted investment pledge will not apply to all of them. Spain has reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5% of GDP spending target, while President Donald Trump said the figure shouldn't apply to the United States, only its allies. In announcing Spain's decision Sunday, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said the spending pledge language in NATO's final summit communique — a one-page text of perhaps half a dozen paragraphs — would no longer refer to 'all allies.' It raises questions about what demands could be insisted on from other members of the alliance like Belgium, Canada, France and Italy that also would struggle to hike security spending by billions of dollars. On Friday, Trump insisted the U.S. has carried its allies for years and now they must step up. 'I don't think we should, but I think they should,' he said. 'NATO is going to have to deal with Spain.' Trump also branded Canada 'a low payer.' NATO's new spending goals The 5% goal is made up of two parts. The allies would agree to hike pure defense spending to 3.5% of GDP, up from the current target of at least 2%, which 22 of the 32 countries have achieved. Money spent to arm Ukraine also would count. A further 1.5% would include upgrading roads, bridges, ports and airfields so armies can better deploy, establishing measures to counter cyber and hybrid attacks and preparing societies for future conflict. The second spending basket is easy for most nations, including Spain. Much can be included. But the 3.5% on core spending is a massive challenge. Last year, Spain spent 1.28% of GDP on its military budget, according to NATO estimates, making it the alliance's lowest spender. Sánchez said Spain would be able to respect its commitments to NATO by spending 2.1% of GDP on defense needs. Spain also is among Europe's smallest suppliers of arms and ammunition to Ukraine, according to the Kiel Institute, which tracks such support. It's estimated to have sent about 800,000 euros ($920,000) worth of military aid since Russia invaded in 2022. Beyond Spain's economic challenges, Sánchez has other problems. He relies on small parties to govern and corruption scandals have ensnared his inner circle and family members. He is under growing pressure to call an early election. Why the spending increase is needed There are solid reasons for ramping up spending. The Europeans believe Russia's war on Ukraine poses an existential threat to them. Moscow has been blamed for a major rise in sabotage, cyberattacks and GPS jamming incidents. European leaders are girding their citizens for the possibility of more. The alliance's plans for defending Europe and North America against a Russian attack require investments of at least 3%, NATO experts have said. All 32 allies have endorsed these. Each country has been assigned 'capability targets' to play its part. Spanish Foreign Minister José Albares said Monday that 'the debate must be not a raw percentage but around capabilities.' He said Spain 'can reach the capabilities that have been fixed by the organization with 2.1%.' Countries much closer to Russia, Belarus and Ukraine all have agreed to reach the target, as well as nearby Germany, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands, which is hosting the two-day summit starting Tuesday. The Netherlands estimates NATO's defense plans would force it to dedicate at least 3.5% to core defense spending. That means finding an additional 16 billion to 19 billion euros ($18 billion to $22 billion). Setting a deadline It's not enough to agree to spend more money. Many allies haven't yet hit an earlier 2% target that they agreed in 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula. So an incentive is required. The date of 2032 has been floated as a deadline. That is far shorter than previous NATO targets, but military planners estimate Russian forces could be capable of launching an attack on an ally within five to 10 years. The U.S. insists it cannot be an open-ended pledge and a decade is too long. Still, Italy says it wants 10 years to hit the 5% target. The possibility of stretching that period to 2035 also has been on the table for debate among NATO envoys. An official review of progress could also be conducted in 2029, NATO diplomats have said. ___ Suman Naishadham in Madrid contributed to this report.
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
CNBC
25 minutes ago
- CNBC
Treasury yields inch higher after U.S. bombs Iran
U.S. Treasury yields inched higher on Monday after the U.S. bombing of Iran and as investors awaited a batch of key economic data this week. At 5:25 a.m. ET, the 10-year yield was more than 1 basis point higher at 4.387%, and the 30-year yield moved over 1 basis point higher to 4.903%. The 2-year yield also added 1 basis point to reach 3.918%. One basis point is equal to 0.01%, and yields and prices move in opposite directions. Investors are on high alert after the U.S. entered the war between Israel and Iran on Saturday by attacking Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. "There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left," Trump said from the White House after the strikes. Investors, who were formerly expecting diplomacy, are now bracing for Iran's retaliation. That could include targeting U.S. personnel in nearby bases or closing the Strait of Hormuz, which would disrupt global oil flows. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on social media that the U.S. attacks would have "everlasting consequences," and that "every member of the United Nations must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior." Deutsche Bank analysts said in a note, "In terms of the economic impact, the US has turned into a net energy exporter in the last few years so any negative impact would be through deteriorating financial conditions or through higher for longer rates as the Fed have another reason to delay cuts." Investors will also await a series of economic data this week, including existing home sales data for May on Monday, gross domestic product growth rate on Thursday, and the personal consumption expenditures index on Friday.
