Someone has to take the responsibility for Hillary Clinton’s loss last month in the presidential election – and it sure isn’t going to be Hillary herself. In a repeat of her monotonous claims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” (originally in regard to the Paula Jones case back in 1996), Hillary has now determined that it was the Russians who “hacked” the election. Her supporters allege that the information came courtesy of the C.I.A.
So what does that mean to the vast deplorable conspiracy that voted for Donald J. Trump? Does she mean that a secret network of computer hackers got hold of our voting machines and changed our votes? Well, that’s rather old school. That’s how John F. Kennedy won in 1960, with Chicago’s then-Mayor Richard Daley, tipping about a 1,000 votes in Kennedy’s direction.
No. She means that the Russians “hacked” our brains with WikiLeaks e-mails about collusion between Hillary Clinton’s State Department, the Democrat campaign donors, and the Clinton Foundation, causing us to vote – against all reason and sanity – for Donald Trump.
As if we needed any urging by Vladimir Putin to vote for Trump. We should give Julian Assange and WikiLeaks some sort of Congressional Medal of Honor for doing what the Liberal Media egregiously failed to – provide us with the truth about the HillBillary campaign and their crooked foundation.
College students all over the country are coloring away furiously in their coloring books, drinking their hot chocolate, and hugging their teddy bears over the Democrat loss last month. They whine about the three million popular vote gap and Trump’s Electoral College win.
In spite of Jill Stein’s recounts in the swing states, Trump picked up an addition 152 votes in Wisconsin. The recount also uncovered numerous instances of voter fraud in 37 separate districts in Detroit alone. Imagine what a recount in California would reveal. Undoubtedly, we would soon unveil the mystery behind that 3 million vote lead Hillary enjoyed.
Yet, the HillBillaries hope to overturn the Elector College count by misleading young constituents into believing that they were somehow cheated out of a victory. Some moderate and even Conservative pundits are trying to ponder the vagaries of the 2016 election and account for Trump’s win. It wasn’t the WikiLeaks – it was this; or it was that. It was the economy. It was the loss of jobs. It was illegal immigration.
Yeah, it was all those things. But most of all, Hillary’s (and Bill’s) misdeeds, which caught up with them, after years of successfully fooling the people, succeeded in alienating the American people, along with Obama’s gutting of the suburbs and the U.S. economy. Citizens United began way back in Clinton’s first administration and Hillary has been battling them all the way.
That will be next – it’s the fault of Citizens United. She did sue them, after all, for negative campaign ads.
The E-mail Scandal is just the latest in a long line of –Gates following in the wake of the Clintons. James Comey flip-flopped all through the summer and into the autumn over whether or not to investigation the allegations suggested by the disclosed e-mails.
Hillary cried foul; that such revelations just before an election were not only unfair, but illegal.
In the end, Comey backed down, supposedly not because the investigation was “illegal” but because he just couldn’t find any evidence in all those thousands of e-mails of any wrong-doing, even though Hillary’s personal computer was illegally used to transmit government information.
She blames the Russians for hacking U.S. government e-mails? Well, she certainly made it easy for them, didn’t she? James Comey, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reports directly to the U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch.
Back in the 1990’s, Loretta Lynch was a Clinton Campaign attorney sent to Arkansas to defend Bill – and more precisely, Hillary – against the Whitewater charges. Lynch was said to be uncomfortable in her role. She suspect, from the evidence gathered by New York Times Washington Bureau reporter Jeff Gerth, that the charges were true.
Still, Lynch’s job was to protect the Clintons and do anything and everything possible to discredit the story, the evidence, and the witnesses. In the end, however, Lynch resigned from the campaign.
According to Bloodsport: The President and His Adversaries, by James B. Stewart (1996; Simon & Schuster): “’But not everyone in the campaign felt the [Whitewater] issue could be buried through [Jim] Blair’s efforts [to quietly “retire” the Whitewater loan, canceling out Jim McDougal’s and the Clinton’s debt on Whitewater, which was hemorrhaging money and bankrupting retirees who bought into the land scheme]. Lynch quit the campaign in June, in part because she thought Whitewater would continue to cause problems for the Clintons. As she explained later, “I did not want to remain responsible for keeping a lid on the issues that were on my plate, including Whitewater. I did not believe I could keep a lid on it.’”
Still, through dismissive denials and newspaper editors and broadcasting producers who killed numerous stores, HillBillary escaped the flood of Whitewater relatively unscathed, winning a second term in office.
Hillary then moved on to the United States Senate, and then to her position as Secretary of State under Obama, after losing the 2008 presidential primary to him. Who did Obama appoint as his attorney general? Why, none other than Loretta Lynch.
Whitewater – now – is small potatoes (or watermelons, the unofficial fruit of Arkansas) compared to the Clinton Foundation and e-mail scandals. Trump’s voters couldn’t care less who released the e-mails or how they came by them. Some of the e-mails were not hacked at all – they were uncovered by investigators examining Hillary’s illegal computer servers.
Physically smashing the computers simply didn’t do the job (Hillary should have been held criminally responsible for that alone – destroying, or ordering the destruction of, government property). Investigators still found plenty of evidence against her. However, that evidence could be covered up.
The WikiLeaks could not be covered up. They were made publicly available by this group of unknown hackers, whether they were Russian professionals, disgruntled Sanders supporters, or a vast right-wing conspiracy of computer geeks. The point is, the public found out, just in time.
Kimberly A. Strassel, a columnist with the Wall Street Journal, in her Nov. 4, 2016 Potomac Watch column, “Clinton’s Justice Department,” summed up the e-mail controversy fairly efficiently. In the blow-out, she writes, “E-mails on WikiLeaks show a top federal lawyer giving Hillary a quiet heads-up.” The very same thing happened with the investigation into Madison Guaranty during the Whitewater Era.
“The most obnoxious spin of the 2016 campaign,” Strassel began, “came this week as Democrats, their media allies and even President Obama accused the FBI of stacking the election. It’s an extraordinary claim, coming as it does from the same crew that has – we now know – been stacking the election all along in the corridors of the Justice Department.
“This is the true November surprise. For four months, FBI Director James Comey has been the public face of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server. He played that role so well, putting the FBI front and center, that the country forgot about Mr. Comey’s bosses. Revelations this week build the case that President Obama’s politicized Justice Department has been pulling strings and flacking for Mrs. Clinton all along.
Strassel continued, “One piece of evidence comes from WikiLeaks, in a hacked e-mail between the chairman of the Clinton campaign, John Podesta, and Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik. It was sent in May of 2015 via a private G-mail account, which has become the favored way for Obama employees to hide communications from the public.
“’Heads up,’ Mr. Kadzik warned, informing the campaign about a coming hearing and a recent legal filing about Mrs. Clinton’s e-mails.
“Don’t let Mr. Kadzik’s fancy title fool you;” Krassel warned, “He is a Clinton partisan. Before joining the Justice Department in 2013, Mr. Kadzik spent 30 years at the (now-closed) law firm Dickstein Shapiro, engaging Democrat causes – and Clinton causes. Mr. Kadzik’s wife, Amy Weiss, was deputy press secretary in Bill Clinton’s White House and a communications director for the Democrat National Committee. Mr. Kadzik also represented the DNC. Campaign finance records show the two variously donated to Hillary’s Senate Leadership PAC, to her 2008 presidential campaign, and to her current campaign.
“Mr. Kadzik is also an old buddy of Mr. Podesta’s. The two go back to Georgetown Law School. When Marc Rich was lobbying Bill Clinton for a pardon, according to a 2002 House Oversight Committee report [not WikiLeaks], the fugitive financier recruited Mr. Kadzik ‘because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.’ Mr. Kadzik even represented Mr. Podesta during the Monica Lewinsky saga.”
Later in the column, Strassel noted, “The Justice Department has tried to dismiss Mr. Kadzik’s tip-off to the Clinton campaign as a note ‘about public information’ sent ‘in his personal capacity, not during work hours.’ But Mr. Kadzik is a senior government official. He does not get to feed any information to a potential target of an investigation at any hour of the day or night.”
Who’s to say who should or shouldn’t influence the voters, or what they should be influenced by? The Liberals certainly don’t mind the Millennials being influenced by Hollywood, rock stars, and drugs. The Presidential Election is a jury trial. There’s no judge (or should be no judge) deciding what evidence the American people may or may not see or how close to an election they may see it.
The Democrats are experts at the so-called “October Surprise” (which, these days, thanks to the Internet and 24/7 cable news, carries over into November, right up to Election Day). The e-mails were hardly an “October Surprise.” WikiLeaks was more like a “March Surprise.” Voters had plenty of time to hear all the evidence and make up their minds.
I have in my possession 28 – that’s twenty-eight – books on the Clintons. I’ve read 26 of them, and there may be a few others in my library that I don’t realize I have simply because the titles don’t have “Clinton” in them. If I’d never heard of a single WikiLeaks e-mail, I already have a pretty good idea of Hillary Clinton’s character.
Even the so-called “Valentine” books, like Blood Sport, Spin Cycle, and the book I’m reading now, The Clintons of Arkansas: An Introduction by Those Who Know Them Best, compiled and edited by Ernest Dumas (1993; The University of Arkansas-Fayetteville Press) are revealing, often unintentionally.
The Clintons of Arkansas is a compilation of short essays by people who knew the Clintons back when. The most interesting (and unintentionally funny) essay is by Bob Lancaster, a free-lance writer and columnist for the Arkansas Times (at the time of publication).
Lancaster actually gives an interesting and well-written history of the state of Arkansas. If one has to purchase such a saccharine tribute to the Clintons, at least you get a well-researched history of the state for your money. He begins with geographic description of Arkansas: “The Arkansas component of the area where three states conjoin [Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas itself presumably] – a flat expanse of ancient sea bottom now dotted with small towns separated by pine forests an cow pastures and drained sluggishly by the sluggish Red River – wasn’t settled until the second decade of the Nineteenth Century, only a little more than a century before the future forty-second president was born there.”
Yes, well. Lancaster writes about the 19th Century town of Washington, Ark., which would eventually become subsumed by the town of Hope. Washington, Lawrence tells us, was Hempstead County’s “hub town.” He describes those who settled in Arkansas – retired civil war soldiers, farmers, tradesmen, those settlers who were “Texas-bound” and those who stayed to settle Arkansas.
Among the settlers, he writes, were “a handful of ‘professional men’: preachers, doctors, and lawyers.”
“At least two things about the community suggest that it might someday turn out a Bill Clinton: How many of those lawyers there were; and how crazy people were for politics, which was their chief public entertainment, and was, for the lawyers, much more than that.
“A town with fewer than two thousand residents in 1860, Washington had twenty [Lancaster’s italics] resident lawyers. At least a dozen of them are lionized in the Arkansas annals, including Grandison D. Royston “grandiloquent Grandison,” Zachary Taylor’s cousin and first grand old man of Arkansas politics; and Augustus Garland, a home-grown, just-getting-started youngster who would one day become attorney general of the United States under Grover Cleveland, the highest an Akansawyer ever got in executive politics until Bill Clinton.
“There was great enthusiasm for the law and for lawyering among these frontier barristers. For the older ones, like Royston, it offered the only hope of distinction; and for the young ones, it offered the only way out or up from the coarse and sometimes stultifying life that provincial villagers were too often heir to [Abraham Lincoln found the same outlet]. The law let a man develop a professional personality and style, and politics gave him a bigger venue for showing them off.
“A lawyer in a town not far from Washington, Arkansas, described the attraction of lawyering in 1853:
Those were jolly times. Imagine thirty or forty young men collected together in a new country, armed with fresh (law) licenses which they had got gratuitously, and a plentiful stock of brass which they had got in the natural way; and standing ready to supply any distressed citizen who wanted law with their wares counterfeiting the article…The clients were generally as sham as the counselors. For the most part, they were either broke or in a rapid decline. They usually paid us the compliment of retaining us, but they usually “retained” the fee, too…The most that we made was experience.
“Actually,” Lancaster goes on to tell us, “nearly all of them made good livings and were the most likely men in communities like Washington to get rich. They prospered not so much by courtroom practice as by land speculation. The ownership of most of the land in antebellum [post-Civil War] Arkansas was disputed, often by many claimants, and the lawyers who didn’t grab off great acreages for themselves made hefty percentages on lawsuits filed for and against those who did. One element of their keen interest in politics was the desire to manipulate – either judicially or legislatively – the government offices and agencies that finally decided the disposition of Arkansas real estate.”
There you have it – from an early Clinton supporter no less. That paragraph pretty much sums up the Whitewater deal and the Clintons’ approach to politics. Bill Clinton never wanted to be a lawyer; he wanted to be a politician, and specifically, President of the United States, as every single one of his biographers attests.
Bill Clinton was ambitious for power. Hillary Clinton was ambitious for money. She was the one who stubbornly ignored repeated advice to dump the Whitewater deal. By golly, she had invested her money in that deal, and she wanted the return on her investment. What the Clintons got, instead, was the next best thing: a loss which they were able to write off on their taxes against their profits from other investments such as Hillary’s miraculous cattle deal as well as other commodities trades.
Hillary would probably be the first woman President of the United States by now, if it weren’t for the Internet. The Democrats didn’t control the reports – they controlled the editors of the newspapers and producers of the news networks. They’ve been hard pressed, though not for want of trying by Barack Obama, to kill the Internet. Their latest effort is to brand any news that is critical of them or their candidates as “Fake News.”
It’s an old ploy they’ve been using for awhile. That’s how they refer to Fox News – “Faux News”. However, 28 books, some of them favorable, don’t lie. Clinton Cash, the book Hillary complains about the most as being “undocumented”, features 58 pages of footnotes in its paperback version. Clinton, Inc., features 18 pages of footnotes.
Facebook and other social media are promising the Democrats to more carefully ‘monitor” the news which they publish. They mean to publish news that fits the Democrat narrative and suppress stories that do not, tagging them as “lies” or “fake news.”
Never fear, though, readers. I have just about every book published on Bill and Hillary, as well as the printed versions of the Wall Street Journal concerning the recent e-mail scandal. We are in a battle for the most essential of our freedoms: the freedom of speech. The criticism of politicians and elected officials is the primary reason that freedom of speech came first in the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution was not to be signed until the government guaranteed this and other rights in writing.
Someday, this Fake News warning will be an addendum to the book Spin Cycle; just another example of the elites – media, political, and otherwise – trying to control the flow of information through suppression, distortion, and minimization to the public.
The truth will always out, however. For those who wish to rewrite history and the 2016 election, let them begin with rewriting this sentence: “At this point, what difference does it make?”