Does It, At This Point, Make Any Difference That Hillary Clinton Continues To Reveal Herself As Dishonest And Untrustworthy? Sure It Does.

Besides, it’s so easy, and it’s fun.

My sister, among others, has adopted a “Who cares what Hillary Clinton does and says?” attitude as, I think, a defense mechanism. Because Clinton won’t slink off under a rock with her husband, however, it is important to flag Hillary’s periodic reminders of how vile she is just to shake in the faces of the dishonest Trump Deranged who keep pretending that the only reason anyone would vote for this President is because they liked him. I won’t waste my brains cells trying to decide whether she was and is a worse human being than Donald Trump—they are awful in very different ways—but together they make a quartet with Richard Nixon and Woodrow Wilson as the four worst people ever to run for President. This we must always remember, along with the fact that but for the Electoral College, we would have had her in the White House.

Thus it is that I feel Hillary’s latest outbursts are still worthy of note here.

1. Clinton said, when asked by a  Hollywood Reporter journalist (They can’t call themselves “Hollywood Reporter reporters,” can they?) about whether she knew about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual predator habits,

“How could we have known? He raised money for me, for the Obamas, for Democrats in general. And that at the time was something that everybody thought made sense. And of course, if all of us had known what we know now, it would have affected our behavior.”

This is one more exhibition of how Hillary just isn’t a good liar (unlike Bill) after all her experience. Any good TV procedural will teach you that when someone answers a question with a question, they are probably lying.

How could she have known? Well for one thing, if anyone knew the tell-tale signs of a male sexual predator, it would be someone, like Hillary, who is married to one, but that aside, the evidence that she did know is very strong. Several Hollywood insiders have said that the Clinton camp knew.  In  2017, the New York Times reported that two celebrity Clinton supporters,  journalist Tina Brown and actress Lena Dunham, warned people close to Clinton about the quid pro quo Hollywood rapist.

Brown, the former feminist editor in chief of the New Yorker, Vanity Fair and the Daily Beast, as well as a Clinton donor, said that she told a member of Clinton’s inner circle about Weinstein way back in 2008. “I was hearing that Harvey’s sleaziness with women had escalated since I left Talk in 2002 and she was unwise to be so closely associated with him,” Brown said. Dunham recalled telling 2016 campaign deputy communications director Kristina Schake, “I just want to let you know that Harvey’s a rapist and this is going to come out at some point. I think it’s a really bad idea for him to host fundraisers and be involved because it’s an open secret in Hollywood that he has a problem with sexual assault.”  Dunham, who sometimes served a Hillary surrogate, said Schake promised  she would pass the message to campaign manager Robby Mook. Dunham  says she gave a similar warning to campaign spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod.

Then there is journalist Ronan Farrow, who says that Clinton’s campaign attempted to pressure him when he first began investigating Weinstein at NBC in 2017, telling ABC News,

“Hillary Clinton had scheduled an interview while I was at the height of the Weinstein reporting, and her folks got in touch and said, ‘We hear you’re working on a big story,’ sounded very concerned, and tried to cancel that interview over the Weinstein stuff.”

Yes, yes, but how could Hillary have known?

2. In the same interview, Hillary went off on Bernie Sanders, confirming that she had said of him, “Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him…” She confirmed that she still believes that, and then said,

“It’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters. It’s his online Bernie Bros… and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink and you want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions…. Then this argument about whether or not or when he did or didn’t say that a woman couldn’t be elected, it’s part of a pattern. If it were a one-off, you might say, ‘OK, fine.’ But he said I was unqualified. I had a lot more experience than he did, and got a lot more done than he had, but that was his attack on me. I just think people need to pay attention because we want, hopefully, to elect a president who’s going to try to bring us together, and not either turn a blind eye, or actually reward the kind of insulting, attacking, demeaning, degrading behavior that we’ve seen from this current administration.”

Well…

  • Clinton and her lackeys dealt from the bottom of the deck to beat Bernie in 2016, and yet he steadfastly refused to attack her on the record, and even in their debates never mentioned Clinton’s self-exposed Achilles Heel, her secret email server, or her influence peddling via the Clinton Foundation.

She should like him. She owes him.

  • Clinton begins by insulting Sanders, and goes on to condemn those who “campaign by insult and attack” and  says voters should not reward reward “insulting, attacking,’ and “demeaning.” Hypocrisy is so natural to Clinton that she doesn’t even notice when she engages in it during the same statement!

No, we must never forget how close this awful woman came to becoming President.

Whew!

29 thoughts on “Does It, At This Point, Make Any Difference That Hillary Clinton Continues To Reveal Herself As Dishonest And Untrustworthy? Sure It Does.

  1. Considering what the DNC did to Bernie Sanders, she should be extremely kind to him. Also, didn’t her campaign staff have #metoo issues that she swept under the rug?

  2. Wait. I am confused.: “Clinton and her lackeys dealt from the bottom of the deck to beat Bernie in 2016 . . . ” Really? How did she and they do that? Sanders agreed to the Super Delegate nonsense before the primaries. HE knew fully well that she had sown up the Super Delegates and the nomination – hell, EVERYBODY, even those bozos on CNN and MSNBC, knew that. So, for Sanders and his supporters to assert that the 2016 nomination was stolen from him is pretty bold. If that is the case, then we may have dodged another Democrat bullet. Maybe by killing off Sanders and his Merry Bros we saved ourselves from another cynical, power hungry totalitarian. I mean, Ocasio-Cortez, a Bernie endorser, just said that she doesn’t want to confiscate money from the millionaires and billionaires, but she wants “their power.”

    Should Clinton turn on him now? Probably not. This recent set of comments, though, is in keeping with her Clinton Denial Syndrome. Not once has she looked in the proverbial mirror and asked herself how it was possible for her lose to Trump. The mirror would respond, “well, Hill, ya blew it Wisconsin, Ohio, W. Virginia, Florida, Indiana, and Illinois. Ya didn’t go to those states and campaign. Think about it – you lost Ohio to a corporate raider! How could you let that happen? Oh, and that ‘basket of deplorables’ comment was a massive misstep. It showed a massive disconnect between you and middle town, showing you to be an obnoxious, elitist snob dismissing hard-working people who have different opinions. As a presidential candidate, you should tell people you are looking out for their best interests and not promise to kill off their jobs. You lost W. Virginia because you told coal miners and their daughters you were gonna put ’em out of work. Dumb. Remember was Carville used to tell Billy-Boy? ‘It’s the economy, stupid.’ Yet, there you were killing jobs in Ohio, W. Virginia, Pennsylvania, and a host of other states. Yet, you keep whinging about a stolen election. How can you be so dense?”

    As for Sanders,though, I find it hard to believe he is a misogynist or sexist. Clinton has no idea whether Sanders told Warren that a woman couldn’t be president. A comment like that coming from Sanders seems anathema to everything Sanders believes, and considering Warrens’ ruthlessness, she will do and say anything to destroy people who stand in her way.

    I am no Sanders fan, but his progressive/communist/Marxist/Leninist/Leftist ideations are known far and wide. I’m certain he keeps a photo of Chairman Mao by his bedside. In fact, he could put his Communist bona fides against Marx any day of the week and clean Karl’s clocks. I suspect Sanders said something to the effect of, “a woman candidate is going to have a hard time beating TRUMP in 2020 because the troglodytes who vote for TRUMP won’t vote for a woman because, well, they’re troglodytes who won’t vote for a woman.” Or, maybe he meant, “Lizzie, dear, YOU can’t beat TRUMP in 2020 because of your ‘questionable relationship’ with the truth – he is going to mock you mercilessly with the ‘Liawatha’ line and that will hurt your chances; besides, we need to keep the progressive party moving.” Or, “Harris can’t beat TRUMP because of her checkered history as a DA in San Francisco – that she routinely incarcerated Blacks for ‘victimless’ crimes is her Achilles Heel.” Or, “Amy is a nice, staid candidate but we need a junkyard dog, someone willing to go to the mattresses against Trump. He will eat her alive.” Or, “Tusli can do lots of push-ups but her relationship with Assad is a deal breaker for most United Statesers.”

    jvb

    • How did she and they do that? We know from Donna Brazile’s book that the DNC, which ran the primaries and scheduled the debates, allowed Clinton’ organization to take control. That’s per se the bottom of the deck. The debate schedule was set up to minimize Hillary’s exposure, among other decisions that were dictated by Clinton’s team. Bernie should have been allowed to run (not being a Democrat), but once he was, the party was obligated to be fair and not take sides.

      • In principle I agree. An open and fair primary is what parties should provide. The RNC actually did it and let Trump get out of hand. The DNC, though, didn’t and EVERYBODY knew it. Sanders included.

        Sanders signed up for the race knowing what the rules were – he knew the cards were stacked on her side and yet he carried on with the campaign. I have no sympathy for him. He agreed to the rules and now he complains that she shoved them in his face? Pathetic. This seems to be a pattern with him, though. He agrees to stuff (superdelegates or this idiotic non-aggression pact with Warren) and whinges when his nose gets rubbed in the muck. He is a fool. Always has been and always will be a fool.

        jvb

        • I would stipulate that any adult who holds his views of socialism after the world’s experience is by definition a fool. As are those who would vote for him. It tells us a lot about Vermont, doesn’t it?

            • My take is Bernie took on the role of sacrificial lamb to oppose Hillary, sort of. Then people started to support him and, son of a bitch, he could a been a contender. Eventually, he thought he was a legitimate candidate, you know, like the idiots who sent him money. The whole thing just went horribly awry. And now he’s still a thorn in the side of the DNC and the, hahahaha, Biden coronation.

          • I would stipulate that any adult who holds his views of socialism after the world’s experience is by definition a fool. As are those who would vote for him. It tells us a lot about Vermont, doesn’t it?

            The PBS series America’s Great Divide has interviews with people from different political perspectives, but one note that runs though the whole series, and appears in the discourse of each interviewee, is that the system has not been working well for 40% (more or less) of the population. These are their words not mine. Some of them refer to the 2008 crisis which resulted in loss of home for many, and bankruptcy, but there was one statement which struck me: that a large percentage of people, for whatever reason, have only a few hundred dollars on hand when in the case of an emergency. And that many people live in situations of *paycheck to paycheck*.

            On all sides, as I have listened to their discourse, there is a general critique of ‘the elites’ and those who designed, and those who benefit from, a particular ‘system’ which — they say this — is not working so well for the under-classes (or perhaps simply the American worker generally).

            If that is understood to be a genuine problem, what is the solution to it?

            If this is true — I have verified it to a degree among people I know living in the States — my question is how shall I interpret this? If I follow — for example — Chris Marchner who offered his opinion once, There is always something a person can do if they take matters in hand, is what he seemed to say (if I understood him correctly). This is likely true up to a point. His idea is that no matter what it is the ‘fault’ of the given person (in this case many millions of people, perhaps 75 million or something like that) who are not being responsible and therefore suffer the consequences of their own decisions and choices. But if I understood him correctly it is not possible, or perhaps proper, or ethical, to speak about ‘systems’: systems that are or become disadvantageous to some and advantageous to others.

            Each of the persons in the series America’s Great Divide more or less stated directly that ‘if things do not change then the social and political problems will increase’. There is a certain *ominous note* which appears in much discourse today. Each of them, it is true, looks at the same problem (my impression) but each from a particular angle. But what struck me is that though they are on opposite sides of a spectrum they are speaking to a similar problem, they are seeing a general problem. For example if I compare Steve Bannon to Robert Reich (who I listened to but know nothing about).

            If by socialism you mean the Soviet Union, former China, N Korea — and America’s favorite Venezuela! — I think what you say is true. But my question has to do with social programs, not so much ‘socialism’, within an industrial-capitalist project (France, Germany Denmark and Canada are quite strong in these areas).

            America has some such limited ‘social programs’ already and these are I suppose examples of a semi-socialism. Taxation is a form of ‘socialism’ when the funds are demanded and applied to projects that benefit society, isn’t it? It seems to me that a great deal depends on how people want those taxed funds to be used. But it is a given that the State (the Nation and its government) is so huge already, and channels the funds from taxation in so many directions, in this sense the hope for a minimal or reduced government is somewhat absurd, isn’t it?

            • “Their words” are nonsense, Alizia. No system “works well” if the bench mark is solving the problems caused by bad luck, bad families, bad ethics and bad morals. “Works” means that such people are in fact doing better than they would almost anywhere else, and that’s the truth, here, now, and for a long, long time. “Working well” does not mean a government takes money and opportunities from those who have worked for their success, or who have benefited from their families efforts to give them security and a chance to thrive. “Works well” is like “fairness”—it has disparate definitions. The United States set thos definitions, however, with their founding documents. A government that works well stays out of the way, and lets individuals play whatever hands they were dealt as well as they can, while keeping the rewards they derive, if any. “Working well” does NOT mean making sure you get what you want, or insuring you against the vicissitudes of life. And those nations that have a different view of “working well” are simply normalizing mediocrity and worse. Fine for them, not for us.

              • “Their words” are nonsense, Alizia. No system “works well” if the bench mark is solving the problems caused by bad luck, bad families, bad ethics and bad morals.

                You are here referring to ‘people’ and I acknowledge that there are people, and families, who have bad life-skills and also bad ethics and morals. There is a good deal that could be said — that is said, by different people with different philosophical points of view — about what are ‘bad ethics’ and ‘bad morals’. Generally speaking, it has been said and it is said that people among the lower classes have bad ethics and bad morals and also bad habits in regard to wealth issues. Generally, this is the ‘conservative’ viewpoint and stance.

                But in addition to ‘people’ — individual persons, working persons — there are ‘systems’. And these systems can, and I think have, made very bad and also immoral and unethical choices. For example, in the situation that created the devastating economic collapse of 2008.

                In the PBS series America’s Great Divide all of the interviewees make reference to that crisis, and the way it was handled: who benefitted and who lost, as being of high relevance in an analysis of the social turbulence of the following years. So, I can agree with you that individual persons can and do suffer from ignorance about proper economic management and can and do make bad choices. But I can also see — I do see — that ‘powerful players’ can and do the same and their choices (their moral and ethical foundations) seem to have large consequences.

                If this is so then it could be asserted that ‘bad ethics and bad morals’ as you say have a presence within the total system and not just within the populace, and a specific segment of the populace which is often blamed for the problems it suffers. (It is likely that this is my own general view, based on what I have observed in the States and also what I see around me here, which is related).

                “Works” means that such people are in fact doing better than they would almost anywhere else, and that’s the truth, here, now, and for a long, long time.

                This is an odd way to contextualize it. If you were to say (speaking to those who suffered the crisis of 2008 and the ‘outsourcing of industries’ in the past 30 years or so, among other features) “Well, you are doing really badly, you are going bankrupt, you have lost your home, and you are slowly becoming impoverished — but look on the bright side! You are doing much better than those people over there in another country”, I am uncertain of what use that perspective is.

                “Working well” does not mean a government takes money and opportunities from those who have worked for their success, or who have benefited from their families efforts to give them security and a chance to thrive.

                The government takes money through taxation from each earner, in varying degrees, and then it uses that money in all sorts of different ways. The *larger discussion* that goes on in the public sphere — and it is a contentious one and everyone has an opinion and many opinions conflict — has to do with how these funds are applied and who benefits. This is what they say, not what I am saying.

                One way to ‘take an opportunity’ from those average citizens is to take funds from them, perhaps disproportionately in comparison to others? but not to cycle back to them a corresponding benefit? Or a benefit that is, for them, a ‘genuine benefit’.

                “Works well” is like “fairness”—it has disparate definitions.

                Amen to that, brother! (someone might say).

                A government that works well stays out of the way, and lets individuals play whatever hands they were dealt as well as they can, while keeping the rewards they derive, if any.

                That is an abstract assertion, and an ideal assertion. And a loooonnngggg time ago that particular limited government situation changed dynamically and thoroughly. The ‘limited government’ of the Founders certainly made sense in those former times. But the people who run and manage the system — the nation — made choices that changed it absolutely. Wars, designing ‘world economic systems’, giant military, giant social engineering projects — this list can go on & on.

                It seems — I say this as honestly as possible — that we no longer live and may not live again in a time of ‘limited government’ such that you propose. And there is another factor, related to that: that the non-limited government that does exist now makes choices and plans that benefit those who are successful in making their cases before that government, or who are ‘enmeshed’ with it. And this defines ‘The Swamp’ and what that term refers to.

                Finally, I am not convinced if all their words are ‘nonsense’ (be they of Bannon or Coulter or Reich and even some of the hot-heads on the NYTs editorial board or at the WSJ), and I do not know whose words not to call ‘nonsense’. I admire those who have come to fixed conclusions though, but I wonder how they manage to pull it off? My view is that many people — including you and including those who write on your blog — deal in *perspectives* and *partial views*: just like everyone else!

                And then finally-finally: I do understand your view about the larger part of expenditures going into ‘entitlements’, and this increasing as the population ages and demands more.

                I am a researcher . . . not a concluder.

              • Note: the capitalism of our time, and of the US, is one in which the state intervenes extraordinarily. It is not therefore ‘capitalism’ but — in fact — a highly socialized state intervention. Public funds are employed to stimulate business enterprises. So, the government helps, extraordinarily, the private capital sector.

                What do you think of that description?

        • I am not sure Sanders knew it. You know who did know it? Biden.

          Why didn’t Biden even RUN last time? The fix was in from the outset. How many times has the Vice-President of a two-termer not gone on to run for President? Jack would know better than about the pre-FDR days, but I think since then the answer is once: Cheney. Nixon in 1960; Bush in 1988; Gore in 2000. Cheney left the White House and is gone. Biden left in 2016 and decides he really wants to run NOW?

          He misses the White House?

          He’s grown wiser in the last four year?

          His best shot would have been riding Obama’s wave, but he decided to take a term off. Because the fix is now in for him (probably). The deal was: don’t savage HRC in 2016 and, whether she wins or loses, he will get rewarded. She did not win, so it’s his turn now.

          -Jut

          • That’s a pretty solid analysis. A month ago, I wondered about a Democratic convention getting underway this summer with no one candidate having locked up the majority of delegates. I’m not the only one…I’m sure it was mentioned in this forum. So at the convention, Secretary Clinton sweeps in and attempts to “be the Savior”, assume the nomination, and take out President Trump.

            Now that several more candidates have dropped out, that may be less likely. But, let’s say Biden, Sanders, Warren, Yang, and one of Bloomberg/Steyer survive to the convention. It’s still a solid possibility that we don’t have a candidate locked up.

            I think Hillary Clinton is finished, but I don’t think she does, nor does whatever is left of her Machine.

            • Do you know why he didn’t (honest question, because I don’t recall seeing a reason)?

              Was it that he had a deal with Clinton to support her?

              Did he tell Joe that he would have to support the woman candidate over the old white guy, so don’t run?

              Well, he likely ruined a lot of his legacy (such as it was) in the process.

              -Jut

              • He SAID it was because of the death of his son. That may have been part of it, but Joe has always been a good soldier. Everyone was conceding the WH to Hillary, and I’m sure people, like Obama, were telling him and others to stay out of the way so she didn’t meet the same fate as in 2008. Look at who ran against her! Iconoclast Jim Webb, a conservative, macho, temporary Democrat; Lincoln Chaffee, a converted Republican, Bernie, not even a member of the party, and pathetic Martin O’Malley, the epitome of a state pol not ready for the big time. it can’t be a coincidence. The Dems act like the Soviet Communists.

            • I can’t tell you how many times I told my wife in the 2016 campaign cycle…”I really wish Joe Biden was running…” He seemed like such a good, middle-of-the-road option compared to Clinton and Trump.
              Dozens of times I said that and – as a life-long Republican – it hurt to say it, but it was true…at the time.

              With hindsight, I think we clearly dodged a bullet there, and the President, while still being a jerk and a bully, has done a solid job as leader. But in 2016, I almost certainly would have pulled the lever for Biden.

  3. The Clintons are thoroughly corrupt. I wonder how a child raise by them could function in society.

    Bill played putt putt gold with his little girl. She would not let him keep score.

    Res ipsa loquitur

  4. those who “campaign by insult and attack”

    Uh, Hillary? Didn’t your folks commission and deliver the “dossier” to the media and the FBI? Uh, wasn’t that an “attack?” I guess it depends on what your meaning of “attack” is, right?

  5. Besides, it’s so easy, and it’s fun.

    Okay, I’m back up off the floor and no longer rolling around and kicking my feet and laughing.

    But seriously, thanks for writing this take down of Her Hillaryness’s latest. She’s just the gift that keeps on giving. I read much of the Hollywood Reporter reporter’s story and I have to admit my eyes glazed over and I hardly noticed anything.

    • By the way, I’ve always thought the fact the take down of Harvey Weinstein was green lighted meant the Clintons were no longer players, they’d been neutralized.

  6. Can someone explain why the House managers ask for witnesses in the Senate trial when they failed to obtain them during the inquiry because they said seeking judicial relief would take too long. Wouldn’t the time frame be the same or longer if the Senate subpoenas were challenged under executive privilege. Why would things be different.

    I know this is off topic but the whole rationale makes sense only if tbe goal is to drag out the process for political reasons

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.