According to the settled science, Clinton is still almost certain to win the US federal election this coming Tuesday. The problem with this is that we just don’t know what the science is based on, whether it’s true or just more of the same guff designed to manipulate the casual voter.
Now, the Comey FBI issue has reared its ugly head again for Clinton. For people who have been observing Clinton with interest over the last 12-18 months (and longer), there is no news in this at all as it simply rehashes what we already know. However, for the rabbidly pro-Clinton media (who also know every last little sordid thing Clinton has been up to), it’s a revelation that has brought things along too far to publicly ignore or whitewash any more.
While the mainstream media would like everyone to think Clinton’s issues are all too technical and complicated, the basics of her holy trinity are very easy to digest:
The home server
Hillary illegally maintained a backyard computer setup through which she conducted the highly contentious business of Secretary of State – something on everyone’s bucket list.
When the Feds came knocking about it, she deleted over 30,000 emails stored on the server, smiled and effectively said ‘trust me, they’re not relevant, stay cool’. Of course, Wikileaks and other materials found by the FBI have since shown that the feds may be very interested in some of those emails – hence Comey re-opening the FBI’s file.
The Clinton Foundation
Hillary and Bill have run – and continue to run – the crooked Clinton foundation.
The process is simple: people and governments (including Australia’s) all over the world would ‘donate’ tens and hundreds of millions of dollars to the foundation – either by direct cash deposit or by having Bill dribble on at functions for obscene amounts of money. In return, the donations would attract favours from and access to the US government. And there’s been plenty of fat on the side to personally enrich Hillary and Bill in the process.
The classic example (among countless) is Haiti. Following the devastating earthquake in 2010, the Clinton foundation rushed to scene to stand ‘shoulder to shoulder’ with the poor Haitians and procure ‘donations’ for the rebuilding effort. The problem was that, while the Clintons got the ‘procuring’ right, the ‘delivery’ part was quite novel. Those that donated to the Clinton Foundation were granted access to Haiti to build things like hotels and Haitian arms of their global corporate chains – just what every earthquake stricken third world country needs. You can just see the commercial now: ‘when a catastrophic earthquake hits, I like to head straight for the sweatshops and get myself an Old Navy sweatshirt‘.
Meanwhile, all the essential things the Haitians needed weren’t quite as forthcoming.
And, of course, there was the obligatory fat on the side for the Clintons themselves. After all, going from broke on leaving the White House to almost billionaires doesn’t happen by itself you know.
For those not aware of what happened, the facts are simple: four Amercians were killed in coordinated terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya on September 11 and 12, 2012. At the time, Hillary was Secretary of State.
In the aftermath, Hillary tried to tell everyone that the attack was done in protest to an internet video – even though she knew full well it was a planned terrorist attack which, funnily enough, was carried out on SEPTEMBER 11. This kind of lying wouldn’t matter but for scary things such as this:
A State Department memo documents that on the very next day after her duplicitous public statement, Clinton informed Egypt’s prime minister: “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. . . . It was a planned attack — not a protest.”
That was just two days before Clinton, in cold-blooded disgrace, looked Charles Woods in the eye and said, “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son.” That was at Andrews as they were receiving the body of Ty Woods, killed while saving American lives in the late hours of a terrorist siege
And then there is the question of whether Hillary’s backyard IT setup played a part in giving up the locations of those killed in the attack.
The funny thing is that all hardened leftists can counter the above with is that:
- Trump is a boorish, rude, dirty womaniser (all very true) and might push the wrong button on the nuclear launch panel (complete nonsense); and
- apparently, this is a lot worse than all of the above things that Clinton has done and THE reason not to vote for Trump.
The sad thing is that this line of reasoning has resonated with enough voters to keep Trump at bay.
In other words, one person says some foul things, while the other actually does foul things involving insane amounts of money, negligently revealing highly classified material and quite possibly playing a major role in the preventable deaths of US citizens (and clearly lying about the attacks) – and the people seem to prefer which one exactly? Strange.
It just goes to show that people are generally more willing to live on their knees and tolerate more of the same rather than risk fighting their way out of trouble.
Or are they?
In this campaign’s race to the bottom, Thomas Sowell offers a very interesting argument in favour of Trump (as much as he despises Trump): his impeachability (sad, I know). That is, if Trump were to stray even the slightest bit as president, he could and would be impeached almost instantly. On the other hand, could you say the same for Clinton if she were able to ride all of the above and STILL become president? Seriously, what more would it take to hold her to proper account?
Back to Comey
That a Secretary of State could run her official business through a home server, delete more than 30,000 of her emails, say there’s nothing to see – and for the FBI to be unable to find the emails and give up – is incomprehensible. But that’s precisely what had happened by 5 July 2016, when the FBI announced that no charges would be laid against Hillary.
Then, following relentless Wikileaks pressure, along with other documents uncovered by the FBI’s investigation of Anthony Weiner (the husband of Hillary’s top aide who has extreme difficulties in keeping his appendage to himself), Comey decided to re-open the file.
Just stop and think about that for a minute: the FBI couldn’t find Hillary’s ‘missing’ emails or any material wrongdoing, but Wikileaks could?! And, if we are to believe the FBI that Wikileaks had nothing to do with the case being re-opened, then why did the FBI close its file while Weiner (very closely linked to Hillary) was still under investigation?
It’s very difficult to believe that this has all simply been a matter of incompetence by the FBI: digging up Hillary’s deleted emails would have to be one of the easiest IT jobs on the planet – just ask the folks at Wikileaks.
Just as incredible in all of this was the Democrats’ response – that Comey may have broken the law! That is, the very same Comey:
- whose department of ‘career officials’ Hillary applauded (via her spokesman) on 5 July 2016; and
- who was appointed by Obama!
Taking the people for fools indeed.