34.4 F
Saturday, March 25, 2023
HomeIllinois NewsStarbucks CEO endorses Hillary, steams Trump's "bigotry, hate, divisiveness"

Starbucks CEO endorses Hillary, steams Trump’s “bigotry, hate, divisiveness”



Pumpkinspicelatte1-870x645NEW YORK – Think of it this way – every time you stop at Starbucks, you'll be endorsing Hillary Clinton for president – in one way – because this week, CEO Howard Schultz endorsed the former First Lady for president. 

That's a bummer, especially since they just brought back their pumpkin spice latte in the coffee shop's seasonal menu. 

"Hopefully Hillary Clinton will be elected president," Schultz told CNN's Poppy Harlow in a Facebook Live interview.

"I think it's obvious that Hillary Clinton needs to be the next president," Schultz said in an interview with Harlow at CNN Money's American Opportunity breakfast Wednesday. "On the other side, we've seen such vitriolic display of bigotry and hate and divisiveness, and that is not the leadership we need for the future of the country." 


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories


  1. The local Starbucks stores are havens for left-leaning liberal housewives willing to pay $5.00 or more for a lousy cup of coffee. My stomach can’t stand that stuff.
    Didn’t Starbucks begin in Washington state, or Oregon?
    Haven’t both those states been infested with invasions of former Californians, liberals seeking lower taxes?

  2. I guess the Starbucks boycott continues added to my boycott of Target which is no longer family friendly. Both are overpriced, aside from politics, not sure why anybody goes there. I like 7-11 coffee, or Shell quick mart coffee is very good too.
    I’m heading over now to Walmart, then Chick Fil a for lunch and then over to Hobby Lobby.

  3. I have only had one cup of starbuks coffee in my life… I was stuck in an airport and that was the only coffee available.
    So I can’t boycott what I have been boycotting for years. THis arrogant CEO and the truth are strangers… none of what he said about Trump is true…. he just gave me another reason not to buy his crappy high priced coffee, I don’t do business with immoral people.

  4. The arrogant CEO and the truth are strangers… none of what he said about Trump is true…. he just gave me another reason not to buy his crappy high priced coffee, I don’t do business with immoral people. And that’s the truth!
    “no really” calls Trump a zero after he easily won the Gop primary… Hillary barely beat a crazy old commie to gamer the communist party’s nomination, so who is zreo! Its immoral and criminal Hillary, the Benghazi butcher and cover upper of Bill Clinton’s sex assaults!
    FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
    by Andrew C. McCarthy
    There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. Get Free Exclusive NR Content In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

    FBI=Fascist Bureau of Intimidation
    Zero Hillary, the liar is a treasonous criminal
    Equal under the law my foot! Just like a third world banana republic dictator, Obama told the fascist arm (FBI) of the Obama administration what to do and the FBI rolled over for him. We have no just system of law & order when some people are more equal than others. Of course that the communist Democrat’s way…

  5. The way some people run into a Starbucks every day reminds me of a drug addict needing his ‘fix.”
    Is there “a little something extra” they put in the coffee in that place?
    Do you drink that stuff “no really?” Does that explain your comments on this site?