The Beginning of the End for Hillary Clinton?
It appears Democrats and their media echo chamber are finally beginning to distance themselves from her.
It appears Democrats and their media echo chamber are finally beginning to distance themselves from Hillary Clinton.
One might wonder what took them so long. “Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar,” wrote New York Times columnist William Saffire, more than two decades ago. He also reminds us of something that has remained true ever since, noting that “she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”
Saffire was wrong in one sense. Suborning is defined as bribing, or otherwise inducing, someone to commit an illegal act. In reality, Hillary Clinton has long had a cadre of willing useful idiots that needed no suborning whatsoever to carry out her dirty work. People like Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief-of-staff at the State Department, who made sure all of Clinton’s emails “migrated” to Platte River Network’s server, where they were purged using the BleachBit program. People like hack congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was forced to resign as head of the DNC when it was revealed she and other party officials conspired to sabotage Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign. People like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who insists the stench surrounding Clinton’s role in the transfer of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to a Russian-controlled company is a “redux of Benghazi.” And people like attorney Marc Elias, who brokered the deal between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and Fusion GPS — and then lied about doing it for over a year.
The last story, the one that completely flips the yearlong Democrat/Leftmedia narrative about Trump collusion with Russia on its head, was broken by The Washington Post, a newspaper that long ago abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity. Why the change of heart? “Conservatives who despise the MSM often forget that journalists are human beings, too, and one thing that journalists hate is being played for patsies,” writes columnist Thomas Lifson, in reference to the Post’s revelations.
The other major entity to publish a story utterly inimical to Clinton was The Hill, which broke the Uranium One story last week. While more balanced than the Post, The Hill is decidedly left-leaning too.
Why the one-two punch right now? As Conrad Black explains, a Washington Post “struggling desperately in its discomfort” published its so-called revelations “a few days ahead of the information being forcibly extracted by congressional subpoenas.” Nonetheless, the paper trashed The Hill story as one that mainstream outlets have “smoked out” as “preposterous conspiracy-mongering.”
Those would be the same mainstream outlets willing to run with the outrageous and completely unverified allegations about Trump and Russian hookers in the infamous dossier, but only after the lowbrow Buzzfeed website published it first.
Old habits die hard, and one of the Leftmedia’s longest and most enduring habits has been defending the Clintons, despite ultimately being made utter fools for doing so. Here’s a classic from The Washington Post laying the groundwork for Bill Clinton’s defense in Monica Lewinsky scandal. The media catch-word used back then to rationalize Bill’s predatory behavior was his ability to “compartmentalize” his scandals.
Nonetheless, Lifson insists “that blinders may be slipping from the eyes of some at the pinnacle of MSM prestige, now that they know they have been manipulated and deceived.”
Perhaps. Or maybe what we’re seeing is the beginning of a coordinated effort to keep Hillary Clinton from making another run for the White House in 2020.
The DNC has begun distancing itself from its former standard-bearer. “Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization,” DNC Communications Director Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement.
DNC deputy chairman Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) was equally emphatic. “Tom and me — we weren’t even there at the time,” he insisted. “I know as much about it as you guys who have reported it.”
Last March, Ellision was far more “knowledgeable,” insisting Trump’s collusion with Russia was “worse than Watergate, when you believe a hostile foreign power engaged in an attempt, and with the collusion of the sitting administration to manipulate an election.”
No doubt to Ellison’s dismay, it now appears the Obama administration attempted to manipulate the election.
Clinton herself? Former campaign spokesman Brian Fallon stated Hillary “may have known” about the dossier, but “the degree of exactly what she knew is beyond my knowledge.”
What’s now common knowledge is Federal Election Commission filings revealing the Clinton campaign and the DCN paid Perkins Coie a combined $12.4 million. We also know that both the DNC and the Clinton campaign failed to list Fusion GPS as a vendor in their campaign-finance filings.
Regardless, Americans are expected to believe that millions of dollars were spent by both entities without the principle players knowing where the money was headed.
Fallon, now a CNN contributor, remains unrepentant. “I regret I didn’t know about Christopher Steele’s hiring pre-election,” he tweeted, “If I had, I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him.”
CNN describes Steele as “the former British intelligence agent who authored the dossier,” conspicuously omitting the damning reality that this so-called author’s sources were “a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure” and “a former top level intelligence officer still active in the Kremlin,” as Steel himself revealed in memos to Fusion GPS founder Glenn Simpson.
CNN has also failed to disclose its own ties to Fusion GPS.
The Wall Street Journal neatly sums up the real scandal going on here, explaining that when one strips out the middlemen, “it appears that Democrats paid for Russians to compile wild allegations about a U.S. presidential candidate.”
Even worse? If the Obama administration used the dossier as its basis for investigating Trump, “it would mean the FBI used a dirty trick from the candidate of the party in power as an excuse to investigate the candidate from the opposition party,” columnist Michael Goodwin explains.
Last December, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll revealed 62% of Democrats and Independents don’t see Clinton as a candidate for president in 2020. That was before Clinton’s role in this sordid saga was revealed. Thus, there’s a distinct possibility America’s most self-entitled politician could be facing an unthinkable future. One best described in two words: