[NOTE TO READERS FEARFUL OF TRUMP: If you live in a Deep Red or Blue State, you can read this post and not worry that the words written here will help elect Trump, because in Deep Red or Blue states, if you don’t vote for Hillary, it won’t matter. On the other hand, if you live in a swing state, you may not want to read this.]
It’s not news that Hillary has a problem with trustworthiness, with transparency, with the truth. This is a long-standing issue, going back to her Arkansas days, according to Carl Bernstein. Recently the nation has witnessed both the Inspector General and the FBI director call into question the veracity of her accounts regarding her email and server(s).
You would think with so much hanging over her head, Clinton would be on her best behavior, a paragon of openness, especially right before the Democratic Convention.
Don’t hold your breath.
The latest document dump from Wikileaks clearly shows that the DNC staff colluded with the Clinton campaign, which is not permitted under DNC rules. As of this writing, presumably because of the DNC mess, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is out of her job at the DNC, but Clinton has given her a new role, honorary chair of her 50 state campaign, as well as full support for her run for Congress.
Given that Clinton’s press release discussed Wasserman-Schultz’s new role, and offered praise for her, one would have expected that Clinton was fully on top of the details of the DNC mess. But in an interview with Scott Pelley yesterday, on 60 Minutes Overtime, Clinton claimed that she was unaware of specifics about the DNC emails, and she avoided answering a simple question about whether the DNC should be biased. Think about this as you read the exchange below. She fired and rehired Wasserman-Schultz, promised to support her in a run for Congress, without knowing what was in the emails. Believable? And if it is, what does this say about her judgment and the importance of due diligence? But this is not the worst of it. Clinton won’t give a direct answer to a direct question about DNC bias. (You can find this exchange about a minute into the interview.)
Pelley: But maybe the point, Madame Secretary, is you have people in the Democratic National Committee who are supposed to be, if you will, agnostic about who the nominee is going to be. And they seem to have their thumb on the scale for you They seem to be working against Bernie Sanders, their fellow Democrat.
Clinton: Again, I don’t know anything, I don’t know anything about, uh, about these, uh, emails. I haven’t followed it. But I’m very proud of the campaign that I ran. And I’m very proud of the campaign that Senator Sanders ran.
Pelley: In your view any effort in the DNC to favor one candidate or another would have been improper?
Clinton: Again I don’t have, I don’t have any information about this, and so I can’t answer specifically. We ran our campaign. We ran hard. We worked to have as many, uh, successes as possible…..
How crazy is this? The DNC’s own rules insist on impartiality, and Clinton can’t even say, ‘yes, it would have been improper.’ Six words.
If this is how Clinton is behaving—after the IG and FBI reports which undermined her credibility, and right after serious questions have been raised about the relationship of her campaign to the DNC—how can we ever be sure that Hillary Clinton will tell us the truth?
We can’t. And so if you are in a Deep Blue or Red State, you shouldn’t hesitate to vote third party or simply sit this one out.
But whatever you do, if you see Hillary, don’t mention the word “email” to her. She thinks that there is a vast email conspiracy against her. Call it the ‘read scare’.
Because Hillary Clinton is basically always one step ahead of the law, she has no choice but to respond to everything as a defendant on the stand. So, basically, won’t tell either a lie ot a truth, and silently take the 5th when cornered. Either her deep relationship with power centers gives her dead certainty that she is the annointed one no matter what, or she’s had her “supporters” take care of any people or things that might be against her, and no one has the temerity to all her bluff for fear of repercussions. Or both.
The fun fact is the tepid onboarding of the Sanders faction, many of who would rather bathe in Flint tapwater than vote for her. If she were the great communicator she would have debated Sanders at least two more times. I give Trump/Clinton debate a 50/50 chance of even occuring.