Americans Were Smart to Reject Hillary Clinton

Member Group : Jerry Shenk

In July, 2014, I published a column explaining, “…[W]hy Hillary Clinton will never be president.”

It led, “Despite the aggressive ‘inevitability’ chatter among Democratic money people, special interests and media, Hillary Clinton will not be the next president of the United States.

“Through her own choice, failures in Democratic primaries or the verdict of America’s general electorate, Hillary Clinton’s future White House appearances will be guest-only.”

Records show that former-President Bill Clinton has lunched at the White House with President(ish) Joe Biden, but, other than her years in former-President Barack Obama’s cabinet, a search reveals no White House appearances by Hillary since 2001 when she “appropriated” $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions and sundry items on her way out the door.

My prediction was predicated on Hillary’s inauthenticity, un-likeability, and her dismal records in the Senate and at the State Department. In fact, with no positive outcomes at State, her failures stood out: the worst U.S. foreign policy breakdown to that point in history, and, above all, Benghazi.

Not only did Secretary Clinton fail to respond to repeated requests to improve security there, she blamed the Benghazi terrorist attack on an obscure video and then lied about its cause to the caskets and families of the victims.

Hillary was an imperfect spokesperson for Democratic “issues,” too. She embraced her party’s “war on women” rhetoric even though she was a central perpetrator of a nasty campaign against women involved with her husband.

Blaming her spouse’s serial philandering on a “great right-wing conspiracy,” Hillary wasn’t a passive victim of the sex scandal preceding her husband’s impeachment for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Bill Clinton used women. Hillary abused them.

Moreover, Hillary becomes less likeable when she speaks. She has terrible political instincts, an overbearing sense of entitlement  and a gratuitously-combative demeanor. Hillary is vain, thin-skinned, vindictive and, in speeches, her voice can cut glass.

Nonetheless, Democrats excused and/or rationalized her thin record, lousy results, her well-known disregard for legal niceties – i.e.: preserving official government email documents – and nominated her.

But, then, Hillary lost.

Today, she’s back – but not in a good way. Hillary’s current dilemma concerns an investigation into wide-spread pre-election allegations that candidate Donald Trump was a “Russian operative” who was colluding with Vladimir Putin through Moscow’s Alpha Bank.

In 2019, Special Counsel John Durham was appointed to investigate the origins of the FBI’s original 2016 Trump campaign investigation leading to the Mueller probe that wasted $32 million and two years digging into the Russia collusion narrative. Mueller’s report found the allegations against Trump groundless, but no political operatives, media or anyone in the Department of Justice suffered any consequences for perpetrating or promoting the fraud.

In mid-May, Durham began airing his findings in federal court against defendant Michael Sussmann, a lawyer who worked at the outside law firm representing the Clinton campaign. Sussman faces a single count of lying to the FBI in order to instigate a pre-election criminal investigation into Trump.

The trial began on May 16. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign manager, Robbie Mook was called as an early witness for Sussman’s defense, but he confirmed that the “Russia” hoax was approved by candidate Clinton. In fact, Sussmann’s records show he billed the Clinton campaign for his FBI meeting.

Whatever the Sussman verdict, the Special Counsel has proven through evidence and testimony that the person responsible for the scurrilous Trump “Russian collusion” slander was Hillary Clinton. She had help, of course, but Clinton personally approved spreading the story to the news media. Unsurprisingly, friendly media ran with it.

In other words, Clinton approved a plan to smear Trump with Russia allegations to distract from her own private email server and Benghazi scandals; the Department of Justice/FBI served Hillary’s interests; and, now, complicit media is largely ignoring it.

So far, Hillary has avoided having to answer for her role in spreading the false Russia collusion narrative, but, now that her senior campaign operative and others have confirmed that the hoax was Clinton’s responsibility from the beginning, one fervently hopes that 1) Election Day 2016 will not be the only trial Hillary Clinton will ever face for her crimes, and 2) an evenhanded American justice system will prosecute “elites” as vigorously as it would regular citizens.

Color me skeptical on both counts…