The Daily Signal published an article entitled, “Clinton Defies Benghazi Committee, Destroys Remaining Emails”: The Daily Signal article was like a lot of others in the mainstream media that criticized Hillary for destroying the email on her server. (That server, incidentally, is reportedly owned and operated by Bill Clinton.)
“For Hillary Clinton, the deadline came and went to hand over the personal email server she used as secretary of state to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Not only did Clinton refuse the request, but through her attorney, she also revealed the server had been wiped clean.
“According to Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the Benghazi Committee, ‘Not only was the secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest,’ Clinton’s refusal to honor the committee’s demand sets the stage for a confrontation.”
Hilary’s destruction of email concerning Benghazi is not simply an act of arrogance. That destruction strikes me as destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.
Given Hilary’s background as a licensed attorney, she must’ve known that the destruction of her email might be viewed as a criminal act. Nevertheless, she chose to risk being charged criminally by deleting all the email from her computer’s server. This implies that whatever was in her emails must’ve been extremely important and extremely damaging to Hilary.
Being a former lawyer, having been married to Bill Clinton, having worked as Secretary of State, and even having been peripherally implicated in Vince Foster’s alleged suicide back in A.D. 1993, Hilary should be no stranger to criminal law. She’s undoubtedly bold enough to take great risks by committing acts that others might view as criminal–and bet that she has enough knowledge, brains or connections to evade prosecution.
So, I’m left to wonder whether Hilary’s apparently criminal destruction of her Benghazi email diminish, or even end, her chance to win the presidency in A.D. 2016? Or will the Benghazi scandal die down and be forgotten before the end of this year?
• Soon after the Daily Signal article, Politco Magazine published another article entitled “Hilary’s emails: Deleted but not gone”:
“The emails Clinton says she deleted from her personal server may still be recoverable. . . . As House Republican leaders weigh whether to try to force former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to hand over her personal email server, experts say the messages she deleted from it—or at least portions of them—can almost certainly be recovered . . . although retrieving them could be time intensive and expensive.”
If it turns out that Hilary’s email can be recovered and were therefore not actually “destroyed,” could Hillary still be charged with destruction of evidence and/or obstruction of justice? Or could she only be charged with attempted destruction of evidence and/or attempted obstruction of justice?
If criminal charges were even possible, would anyone in power dare to charge Hillary with anything? I.e., given that she probably knows about the criminal activities of other highly-placed members of the Congress, Senate, White House, judicial system and bureaucracy, I’d be surprised if anyone in a position of political power in Washington DC would be willing to charge Hilary with a crime and risk having her expose some of his own questionable or even criminal acts.
Nevertheless, even if the Benghazi scandal blows over and Hilary isn’t charged criminally for destroying evidence, etc., will her conduct still adversely affect her chances of being elected? Or will the majority ignore her seemingly criminal acts and support her candidacy?
• More recently, The Washington Times published an article entitled “Hillary bloodied Bill Clinton, forcing him to get stitches after learning of Lewinsky affair” which gives a glimpse into Hilary’s nature:
“Just as Hillary Rodham Clinton is preparing to launch her presidential campaign, a new behind-the-scenes book about life at the White House is providing a fresh look at her bitter fights with husband-President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, including a bloody clash in the first couple’s bedroom.
“’There was blood all over the president and first lady’s bed,’ writes former White House reporter Kate Anderson Brower. . . .The blood was Bill Clinton’s. The president had to get several stitches to his head.”
“Mr. Clinton ‘insisted that he’d hurt himself running into the bathroom door in the middle of the night,” Ms. Brower writes. ‘But not everyone was convinced.’
“Stories circulated after the 1998 fight in the White House that Mrs. Clinton had brained her husband with a lamp in a fury over the revelations of his sexual affair with Miss Lewinsky, a White House intern.”
Hillary looks like a woman capable of great fury. In fact, my reading of Hillary is that her fury is constantly present, just barely suppressed, snarling and eager to burst forth. Even Putin would be intimidated by Hillary.
“IWhite House florist Ronn Payne recalled witnessing a bitter argument between the first couple.
“He was coming up the service elevator … as the Clintons argued viciously with each other. … [H]e heard the first lady bellow ‘goddamn b******d!’ at the president – and then he heard someone throw a heavy object across the room,’ Ms. Brower wrote. ‘The rumor among the staff was that she threw a lamp.”
“And long before the controversy about Mrs. Clinton’s private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State, the book says that the Clintons were obsessed with secrecy.”
OK–we’ve had some hot gossip concerning Hillary.
She doesn’t come off as weepy. She’s tough. I can’t blame her for being infuriated by Bill’s relationship to Monica. Still, it appears that if Hillary doesn’t get her way, somebody will be made to pay. I doubt that she ever really forgets or forgives. I’ll bet she’s as vindictive as Hell.
In some regards the Bill and Hillary Clinton marriage and the Barack and Michelle Obama marriage are similar in that they both remind me of the old aphorism that “Behind every great man stands a great woman”–except I’d update that aphorism to say “Today, behind every great man stands a great, lamp-throwing bitch.”
I mean, if I was married to Hillary or Michelle, I might also have been motivated to run for the presidency if only to give me an excuse to get the Hell out of the house and get some Secret Service guys to protect me from my wife.
OK–now I’ve had a little fun at Hillary’s expense.
• But is Hillary really fit to be President?
Yes, she might be smart enough (she’s at least as smart as G.W. Bush). She’s probably tougher than most men.
She’s got lots of political experience. She was even born in this country.
Technically, Hillary might be qualified to be President.
But, last February, former Mayor of New York City, Rudy Giuliani, made an amazingly insightful assessment of the fundamental problem with Barack Obama: he doesn’t love America. Giuliani’s assessment was not only true, but brilliant.
Obama is probably the most obvious example of a President who doesn’t love America and therefore seems willing to work against this country’s best interests. But Obama isn’t the only President who doesn’t love America.
G.W. Bush didn’t despise America, but he ran the Presidency like a college pantie-raid. He was, at best, indifferent to the country.
Bill Clinton never showed signs of loving this country. He only loved power, the global chess game, and the broads.
George Bush Sr was a distant intellectual who never communicated any love for this country.
The last time we had a President who openly and undeniably loved The United States of America was Ronald Reagan. That man glowed with love for America. That love inspired Americans at a time of economic malaise and helped our economy far more than any iteration of Quantitative Easing every could.
Now, tell me–have you ever seen a story or photo about Hillary Clinton that conveys the feeling that she loves America?
I have not.
More, I can’t imagine Hillary’s eyes misting over when she hears Taps or the National Anthem. If we put a man on Mars, would tears of pride glimmer in her eyes? I don’t think so.
She doesn’t love this country. She loves power. She loves the “game”. She might love retribution. She does not love America.
And that’s why she’s not fit to be President.
Every President since Reagan hasn’t really loved this country. That’s why every one of them were able to embrace and advance the New World Order and global governance at the expense of the American people. Those presidents could betray America because they didn’t love America. They could engage in treason without guilt or remorse because they never really loved this country to begin with.
Their lack of love for America allowed them to help destroy America.
Thanks to their loveless natures, look what’s happened to America in the last fourteen years under G.W Bush and Obama. This country has lost more power, prestige, respect and wealth in the past fourteen years than its lost at any other time in American history. Those losses have been caused (or at least tolerated) by presidents who don’t love America, don’t want to serve America, only want to control America.
We can’t afford another President who doesn’t love this country; who doesn’t want to serve this country; who only wants to rule this country.
We can’t afford Hillary.
She will sacrifice this country with no more concern than she showed after she sacrificed the four Americans at Benghazi and then said, “What difference does it make?”
In the end, the Benghazi scandal is not about the four American deaths at Behghazi. The Middle East is always unstable. Libya was in turmoil and dangerous. Insofar as our government meddled in Libya, we could reasonably expect to suffer casualties. By themselves, four dead Americans were not numerically significant.
But Hillary isn’t plagued by the Benghazi scandal because four Americans died. She’s plagued by Benghazi because she didn’t give a damn. If she’d loved America, if she loved Americans, she would not have said “What difference does it make?” The four deaths would’ve brought a tear to her eye, rather than a snarl.
It is her indifference to American deaths and her indifference (or even dislike) for America that renders her not only unfit to be President but dangerous to this country.
It would be a mistake to underestimate Hillary’s determination to become President. Like previous presidents who didn’t love America, Hillary might still be elected in A.D. 2016–but she doesn’t truly belong in the White House.
But, I don’t think she’s going to make it. I think that, one way or another, she’ll be removed from the race before the Democrat primaries are over. I think her willingness to risk being charged criminally and her inability to love America will do her in.
We shall see.