Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

They “Said” That? 1/18/18

No real quote tonight, just two pictures that speak volumes. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton are both 71.

Trump has never drank or smoked, and just got a clean bill of health. Heaven only knows how badly Bill Clinton has debauched himself. It catches up with you.

The Last, Best Hope, by Robert Gore

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long.

Donald Trump’s candidacy posed problems for the government and its string-pullers. It repudiated their rule and vision, especially their foreign policy. Trump threatened a bipartisan consensus based on US global dominance and interventionism they had championed since World War II. He proposed improving relations with Russia and questioned the orthodoxy that had embroiled the US in conflicts across the Middle East and Northern Africa. Perpetual conflict has been the fountainhead for the Deep State’s funding and steady accretion of power.

Trump also posed a more immediate threat. As president, he would have access to troves of information, some of which could reveal skeletons in the establishment’s closet. His Attorney General would have the power to investigate and prosecute. Those dangers may well have been the primary cause of establishment hostility.

However, the powers that be didn’t expect Trump’s victory, one reason their response has been so weak. The FBI, NSA, CIA and the other agencies considered part of the intelligence community (IC), operate in the dark, away from journalistic, public, and political scrutiny. To mount its offensive against Trump, the IC had to emerge from the shadows.

The kind of lies used through the years to preserve “plausible deniability” and deflect potential oversight and investigation have proven too flimsy to stand up to serious scrutiny. Skepticism, probing questions, and debunking did not come from the mainstream media, a reliable Deep State ally, but from the alternative media and Trump’s supporters.

Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know the IC has unlimited access to communications and computer networks. The IC or its corporate partners store these information streams. Before he left office, Barack Obama signed an executive order making it easier for the IC to share this data amongst its agencies. Yet with all this information and potential collaboration, after over a year of allegations and investigations, the IC has produced nothing to substantiate its claim of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign during the election.

As if to highlight this lack of hard evidence, on January 6 of this year an Intelligence Community Assessment, commissioned by Obama, was released purporting to be the consensus view of all 17 US intelligence agencies. It wasn’t, it was the views of a small group of “hand-picked” (phrase used by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper) analysts from the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The 25-page report had neither direct evidence nor proof, only an assessment, “based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” (The quote is from the assessment.)

Not only was the information “incomplete or fragmentary,” some of it was pure fiction, emanating from Fusion GPS’s Trump Dossier, much of which has been subsequently discredited. That dossier, an attempt to generate “dirt” on Trump, his campaign, and their connections to Russia, was funded by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s campaign. In retrospect, that the three agencies would use unverified information from a compromised source as one of the primary bases of its assessment sent a clear message: we’ve got nothing.

Wikileaks obtained and disseminated over 40,000 DNC emails starting July 22, 2016. Many of the emails embarrassed the DNC and Hillary Clinton. It was alleged that Russia had hacked the emails and given them to Wikileaks. It was that allegation that got the ball rolling on the Russian influence story.

It was only a year later that the Veteran Intelligence for Sanity (VIPS) challenged the technical basis for the hacking claim. Forensically examining metadata from the intrusion into the DNC server, the VIPS concluded that the emails could not have been remotely hacked. The DNC data was copied at a speed far exceeding the internet’s capability. It had to have been downloaded on site to an external storage device by someone with physical access to the DNC server. That conclusion has mostly been ignored by the mainstream media but has not been challenged. It completely undermines the Russian hacking allegation, the wellspring of “Russiagate.”

As one Russian influence story wanes, two others wax. The 2010 Uranium One sale to a subsidiary of Russian company Rosatom reeks of impropriety on the part of Russian operatives, Uranium One, the Clintons, the FBI, the Attorney General at the time, Eric Holder, and the Justice Department (see “The Rout Is On,” SLL).

The Fusion GPS Trump Dossier appears to be a grab bag of unsubstantiated allegations compiled by former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele. He claims they came from contacts developed when he was head of the Russia desk at MI6, British intelligence. (see “How Obama and Hillary Clinton Weaponized the ‘Dossier‘”) Whether they did or not, none of the allegations have been proven true and some have been disproved. The “information” may have actually been Russian disinformation, or lies.

A thread running through these stories is IC involvement and culpability, particularly the FBI. Robert Mueller headed the FBI during the Russian nuclear investigation, which began in 2008. The results of the bureau’s investigation was either not made available to the foreign investment committee or was ignored and the Uranium One sale went through.

Mueller protegé and friend James Comey, former head of the FBI, relied on the Trump dossier to justify extensive investigation and surveillance of Trump’s team before and after the election. He has admitted that it was, in part, the basis of the IC’s January 2017 assessment, although Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a statement shortly after it was released stating that the IC had made no determination of its reliability.

Comey’s behavior is part of a larger pattern: he consistently acted to further the political aims of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Well before the FBI had interviewed several key witness in the Hillary Clinton email investigation, including Clinton, he began drafting a statement exonerating her. During the investigation, the FBI gave immunity to key Clinton aides and did not require them to turn over their computers.

After Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch’s July 27, 2016 meeting on the Phoenix airport tarmac, the FBI was unconcerned with whether or not anything improper had transpired, but was quite concerned with who leaked the meeting to the press. Nine days later, Comey announced his decision not to charge Clinton. The FBI has stonewalled a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request for documents pertaining to that meeting since July of last year. Those documents have now surfaced and reveal the FBI’s investigative focus.

When the DNC claimed that it had been hacked, it denied the FBI access to its computer servers. Despite not having conducting its own investigation of the servers, the FBI and the rest of the IC accepted the conclusion of cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike Inc., hired by the DNC, that the servers had been hacked by two separate hacker groups employed by the Russian government. CrowdStrike was founded by “Russian-born Dmitri Alperovitch, a senior fellow at the NATO-funded, intensely Russophobic Atlantic Council.” Its work was subsequently discredited.

Comey is not the only one who was or remains in the FBI’s upper echelon who have demonstrated clear conflicts of interest. Agent Peter Strzok, changed the description of Clinton’s behavior in Comey’s email exoneration from “grossly negligent,” which carries criminal liability, to “extremely careless,” which does not. He was demoted for anti-Trump text messages to his mistress, also an FBI employee. The FBI, Justice Department, and Robert Mueller were aware of the texts for months and deliberately withheld them from Congress.

Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe was involved with the Clinton email investigation. His wife ran for the Virginia state senate and received $700,000 in campaign contributions from political groups aligned with Clinton and Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe. Comey was briefed on those ties and despite the obvious conflict of interest, did nothing.

Robert Mueller’s team is also compromised. Mr. Mueller’s deputy, Andrew Weissmann, was the FBI’s lead on the Trump probe. Many of his attorneys come from Obama’s Department of Justice. Nine of the fifteen publicly identified attorneys are Democratic donors, and several donated to the Clinton campaign in 2016.

Attorney Jeannie Rhee defended the Clinton Foundation against racketeering charges, and represented Clinton personally in the email investigation. Attorney Aaron Zebley represent Justin Cooper, a Clinton aide who helped manager her private server. Weissman emailed former acting Attorney General Sally Yates he was “proud and in awe” of her for her defiance against Trump’s travel ban.

As Kimberley A. Strassel noted in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece: “The question isn’t whether these people are legally allowed (under the Hatch Act) to investigate Mr. Trump—as the left keeps insisting. The question is whether a team of declared Democrats is capable of impartially investigating a Republican president.” (“Obstruction of Congress,” WSJ, 12/8/17)

Michael Flynn’s guilty plea for relatively trivial infractions—which he could and should have avoided simply by saying he didn’t remember what he said—and Hillary Clinton’s exoneration demonstrate a gaping difference in legal standards and rigor of investigation between the FBI’s efforts directed against the Trump and Clinton camps. Flynn’s plea, and the charges lodged against Paul Manafort and two campaign aides, are all, so far, that Robert Mueller has to show for his investigation into Russian collusion with Trump and team during the election.

Flynn’s crimes occurred after the election. Manafort, Trump’s campaign chief for two months, was charged with money laundering, not Russian collusion. The closest Mueller has gotten to anything suggesting such collusion is a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos—a tangential figure in the Trump campaign—to lying to the FBI about contacts with intermediaries purportedly linked to Russian intelligence services.

It’s time for a Trump counteroffensive, but the window won’t be open for long. His lawyers need to compile an extensive brief, detailing all of these damning details and developments. The executive summary would be the case Trump makes to the public. Due to political bias, the FBI’s investigations of Clinton’s emails and the charges of Russian influence have been irretrievably compromised. The bias extends to Robert Mueller’s team of investigators. Mueller never should have been appointed; he was already compromised by the Uranium One matter. Mueller, the FBI, and Obama holdovers in the Justice Department have repeatedly stonewalled and subverted legitimate congressional requests for documents and testimony.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board has suggested, Mueller should resign. If he doesn’t, Trump should fire him. He should be replaced with someone who has none of the taint that permeates the present investigations. The successor’s investigation should be confined to Mueller’s original mission: investigating alleged Russian collusion with Trump and his team to influence to 2016 election. If, as is likely, nothing is found within six months, wind up the investigation.

Incoming FBI director Christopher Wray must conduct a thorough house-cleaning and refer findings of possible criminal behavior to the Justice Department. The Justice Department itself needs a thorough housecleaning. After which, investigations should be opened or reopened into: Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, Fusion GPS, how WikiLeaks obtained the emails it disseminated, and finally, and most importantly, the FBI, rest of the IC, DNC, Hillary Clinton, and Obama administration’s attempt to nullify a presidential election.

This represents the last, best hope to confront and thwart the Deep State. Trump’s performance as president hasn’t been the disaster many predicted, and he’s repeatedly outmaneuvered his opponents. He’s got the winds of a decent economy and strong stock market at his back. If he doesn’t take the initiative while the Deep State is bleeding from its self-inflicted wounds, the opportunity will vanish. If it does, the Deep State will ensure that no unvetted candidate ever gets near the White House again. Its plunder and destruction of the United States will proceed, renewed and unhindered…until its work is done.

Christmas Is Coming

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK

New documents reveal FBI’s Clinton cover-up, by Tom Fitton

The infamous Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch tarmac meeting reeks of impropriety, but the FBI’s only concern was keeping it secret. From Tom Fitton at foxnews.com:

In Washington, the ostensible story is rarely the real story. We know, for example, that former President Clinton engineered a meeting with President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, on the tarmac of the Phoenix Airport on June 27, 2016.

That’s the official story, replete with the charming and intentionally disarming detail that all they talked about was their grandchildren. It was just coincidental, don’t you know, that at the time the FBI was looking into Hillary Clinton’s use of a “personal” email server to send, receive and store classified information.

And it was also simply coincidental that just a few days later, the director of the FBI – who served under Attorney General Lynch – announced that he wouldn’t recommend a prosecution of Hillary Clinton.

What we haven’t known, until now, is that a frantic scramble erupted in the halls of the FBI to cover up this meeting. In fact, the FBI turned its sharp light not on the scandalous meeting between the attorney general and Bill Clinton – but rather on one of the whistleblowers who got the word out.

The organization I head, Judicial Watch, asked the FBI on July 7, 2016, for any records that might pertain to the infamous tarmac meeting. We had to sue after we were ignored by the agency.

Then the FBI told us flat-out that it couldn’t find any records. And we now know that was flat-out untrue. Because, in responding to another one of our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits, the Justice Department gave us heavily redacted documents that showed there were additional documents tucked away at the FBI headquarters.

If not for Judicial Watch’s lawsuits these documents would still be hidden today.

To continue reading: New documents reveal FBI’s Clinton cover-up

Sex in America, Part 2, by Ann Coulter

The Democrats have a Bill Clinton problem: admitting that their defense of the dirt bag back in the 1990s was wrong. From Ann Coulter at anncoulter.com:

At least liberals are finally telling the truth about Bill Clinton — and just 20 years after it mattered! Of course, considering it took the Democratic Party a century to discover that slavery was wrong, two decades is lightning speed for these moral paragons.

While edging up to admitting that Bill Clinton maybe shouldn’t have raped Juanita Broaddrick and flashed Paula Jones, liberals still can’t own up to their utterly hypocritical defense of a president credibly accused of repeated sexual assaults and associated felonies.

Recently, The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd tried to cover up the left’s shameful response to Clinton’s sleazy behavior with the “both sides” argument. According to Dowd, liberals “tried to kill off” Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas “over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.” And then conservatives “tried to kill off a Democratic president over sex when the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was politics.”

Here are three important differences off the top of my head:

1) Anita Hill’s accusations against Thomas involved words — just words — whereas Clinton was accused by multiple women of being a sexual predator on a scale to rival Harvey Weinstein.

2) The evidence against Thomas consisted of a single accuser, with no corroborating witnesses. The evidence against Clinton included, among other things, multiple witnesses; contemporaneous corroborating witnesses; secretly recorded confessions of the assaults and liaisons from Clinton himself (the Gennifer Flowers tape), Monica Lewinsky (Linda Tripp tapes) and Juanita Broaddrick (two separate tapes by people who wanted her to tell the truth about the rape); a DNA-stained dress; and, eventually, when he had absolutely no other choice, Clinton’s own admission under oath.

To continue reading: Sex in America, Part 2

Thanksgiving 2017 – Why There Is No Peace On Earth, by David Stockman

It looked like close to a sure thing when the Soviet Union folded in 1991: the end of the Cold War would be the beginning of peace. It hasn’t panned out that way, thanks to the United States. This is an oustanding summary of the period since 1991. From David Stockman at ronpaulinstitute.org:

After the Berlin Wall fell in November 1989 and the death of the Soviet Union was confirmed two years later when Boris Yeltsin courageously stood down the red army tanks in front of Moscow’s White House, a dark era in human history came to an end.

The world had descended into what had been a 77-year global war, incepting with the mobilization of the armies of old Europe in August 1914. If you want to count bodies, 150 million were killed by all the depredations which germinated in the Great War, its foolish aftermath at Versailles, and the march of history into the world war and cold war which followed inexorably thereupon.

To wit, upwards of 8% of the human race was wiped-out during that span. The toll encompassed the madness of trench warfare during 1914-1918; the murderous regimes of Soviet and Nazi totalitarianism that rose from the ashes of the Great War and Versailles; and then the carnage of WWII and all the lesser (unnecessary) wars and invasions of the Cold War including Korea and Vietnam.

We have elaborated more fully on this proposition in “The Epochal Consequences Of Woodrow Wilson’s War“, but the seminal point cannot be gainsaid. The end of the cold war meant world peace was finally at hand, yet 26 years later there is still no peace because Imperial Washington confounds it.

In fact, the War Party entrenched in the nation’s capital is dedicated to economic interests and ideological perversions that guarantee perpetual war; they ensure endless waste on armaments and the inestimable death and human suffering that stems from 21st century high tech warfare and the terrorist blowback it inherently generates among those upon which the War Party inflicts its violent hegemony.

In short, there was a virulent threat to peace still lurking on the Potomac after the 77-year war ended. The great general and president, Dwight Eisenhower, had called it the “military-industrial complex” in his farewell address, but that memorable phrase had been abbreviated by his speechwriters, who deleted the word “congressional” in a gesture of comity to the legislative branch.

To continue reading: Thanksgiving 2017 – Why There Is No Peace On Earth

Linda Tripp: ‘It’s a Day Late, and It’s a Dollar Short’, by Peter J. Boyer

Other than the women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual predation, no woman got as thoroughly and undeservedly trashed by the Clinton’s minions and the mainstream media as Linda Tripp. Here’s her take on the current situation. From Peter J. Boyer at weeklystandard.com:

As the reckoning over sexual abuse finally reaches Bill Clinton, with handwringing by some of his former defenders in the press and in politics, one Clinton White House veteran is following developments with particular interest—and a large measure of skepticism.

“It’s a day late, and it’s a dollar short,” says Linda Tripp, who, 20 years ago, was thrust into the center of the sex scandal that led to Clinton’s impeachment. It was Tripp who revealed the president’s sexual relationship with a 21-year-old White House intern and, for her troubles, was painted as the villain of the sordid episode.

Tripp has a quiet life in Northern Virginia horse country, avoiding the public attention that was so unwelcome in the late 1990s. But the unending flow of headlines about the bad behavior of powerful men, she says, “is forcing me to relive a lot of it.” She’s unconvinced by recent calls in the press for Clinton’s deeds to be reconsidered in a more critical light. “They have nothing to lose, and this is now permissible,” she says. “The fact that the Clintons are dead in the water gives [the media] tacit approval to act like human beings. . . . It’s disingenuous.”

She finds it particularly galling to hear former Clinton defenders attributing their latter-day awakening to evolving social mores. In a November 16 interview with the New York Times, New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand said that she now believes that Bill Clinton should have resigned because of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. “Things have changed,” she said.

“What information do they have at their fingertips today that they didn’t have 20 years ago?” Tripp asks. “What information has changed?”

There were people back then—Linda Tripp, for instance—who reflexively knew that when a president of the United States repeatedly summons a star-struck young White House intern to sexually service him, it is more than a private romantic dalliance. “I’m so weary of hearing that society’s mores have changed,” she says, “when I knew that this was an abuse of, essentially, a kid.”

To continue reading: Linda Tripp: ‘It’s a Day Late, and It’s a Dollar Short’

Sebelius: The Clinton White House doubled down on ‘abusive behavior’ and it’s fair to criticize Hillary Clinton, by Pete Jones

When Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, and CNN start ganging up on the Clintons, you know things have changed for the worse for the former first couple. From Pete Jones at cnn.com:

Kathleen Sebelius testifies as HHS Secretary before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2013.

As a wave of stories unfold about sexual harassment and assault by men in power, a senior Democratic leader says her party should reflect on how it handled such charges when they were leveled against former President Bill Clinton.

“Not only did people look the other way, but they went after the women who came forward and accused him,” says Kathleen Sebelius, the former secretary of Health and Human Services and Kansas governor. “And so it doubled down on not only bad behavior but abusive behavior. And then people attacked the victims.”
Sebelius extended her criticism to Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton White House for what she called a strategy of dismissing and besmirching the women who stepped forward—a pattern she said is being repeated today by alleged perpetrators of sexual assault—saying that the criticism of the former first lady and Secretary of State was “absolutely” fair. Sebelius noted that the Clinton Administration’s response was being imitated, adding that “you can watch that same pattern repeat, It needs to end. It needs to be over.”
The comments came during a conversation with David Axelrod on the latest episode of “The Axe Files,” a podcast produced by the University of Chicago Institute of Politics and CNN.
While Sebelius was critical of both Clintons, she questioned whether the impeachment pursued by Republicans in Congress was the appropriate vehicle for addressing his transgressions.

What if Ken Starr Was Right? by Ross Douthat

It’s about twenty years too late, but democrats and their media organs are getting around to admitting that there might have been something to all those women’s allegations against Bill Clinton. From Ross Douthat at nytimes.com:

In the longstanding liberal narrative about Bill Clinton and his scandals, the one pushed by Clinton courtiers and ratified in media coverage of his post-presidency, our 42nd president was only guilty of being a horndog, his affairs were nobody’s business but his family’s, and oral sex with Monica Lewinsky was a small thing that should never have put his presidency in peril.

That narrative could not survive the current wave of outrage over male sexual misconduct.

So now a new one may be forming for the age of Harvey Weinstein and Donald Trump. In this story, Kenneth Starr and the Republicans are still dismissed as partisan witch hunters. But liberals might be willing to concede that the Lewinsky affair was a pretty big deal morally, a clear abuse of sexual power, for which Clinton probably should have been pressured to resign.

This new narrative lines up with what’s often been my own assessment of the Clinton scandals. I have never been a Clinton hater; indeed, I’ve always been a little mystified by the scale of Republican dislike for the most centrist of recent Democratic leaders. So I’ve generally held what I’ve considered a sensible middle-ground position on his sins — that he should have stepped down when the Lewinsky affair came to light, but that the Republican effort to impeach him was a hopeless attempt to legislate against dishonor.

But a moment of reassessment is a good time to reassess things for yourself, so I spent this week reading about the lost world of the 1990s. I skimmed the Starr Report. I leafed through books by George Stephanopoulos and Joe Klein and Michael Isikoff. I dug into Troopergate and Whitewater and other first-term scandals. I reacquainted myself with Gennifer Flowers and Webb Hubbell, James Riady and Marc Rich.

After doing all this reading, I’m not sure my reasonable middle ground is actually reasonable. It may be that the conservatives of the 1990s were simply right about Clinton, that once he failed to resign he really deserved to be impeached.

To continue reading: What if Ken Starr Was Right?

 

Bill Clinton: A Reckoning, by Caitlan Flanagan

Ever since the Harvey Weinstein story broke, there’s been an elephant in the room. From Caitlan Flanagan at theatlantic.com:

Feminists saved the 42nd president of the United States in the 1990s. They were on the wrong side of history; is it finally time to make things right?

The most remarkable thing about the current tide of sexual assault and harassment accusations is not their number. If every woman in America started talking about the things that happen during the course of an ordinary female life, it would never end. Nor is it the power of the men involved: History instructs us that for countless men, the ability to possess women sexually is not a spoil of power; it’s the point of power. What’s remarkable is that these women are being believed.

Most of them don’t have police reports or witnesses or physical evidence. Many of them are recounting events that transpired years—sometimes decades—ago. In some cases, their accusations are validated by a vague, carefully couched quasi-admission of guilt; in others they are met with outright denial. It doesn’t matter. We believe them. Moreover, we have finally come to some kind of national consensus about the workplace; it naturally fosters a level of romance and flirtation, but the line between those impulses and the sexual predation of a boss is clear.

Believing women about assault—even if they lack the means to prove their accounts—as well as understanding that female employees don’t constitute part of a male boss’s benefits package, were the galvanizing consequences of Anita Hill’s historic allegations against Clarence Thomas, in 1991. When she came forward during Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing and reported that he had sexually humiliated and pressured her throughout his tenure as her boss at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it was an event of convulsive national anxiety. Here was a black man, a Republican, about to be appointed to the Supreme Court, and here was a black woman, presumably a liberal, trying to block him with reports of repeated, squalid, and vividly recounted episodes of sexual harassment. She had little evidence to support her accusations. Many believed that since she’d been a lawyer at the EEOC, she had been uniquely qualified to have handled such harassment.

To continue reading: Bill Clinton: A Reckoning

Hillary Is America, by Robert Gore

National Review

Psychologically, there’s nothing out of the ordinary about Hillary in contemporary America.

Fyodor Dostoyevsky would have been the right author to illuminate the inner world of Hillary Clinton. He had the imaginative power to show the psychological deterioration—the rickety castle of lies she’s built to shut out threatening realities and the truth.

For all of Dostoyevsky’s skill, it probably would have been beyond him to dramatically render America’s degenerate descent. Hillary’s supporters believe she’s extraordinary; her detractors believe she’s a tragic anomaly. They’re both wrong. The real tragedy is that in contemporary America, there’s nothing exceptional about her other than her criminality, and how exceptional is that? Shutting out reality and the truth are national pastimes. She’s not psychologically differentiated in any way from the crowd, and her access to platforms allows her to peddle what it wants to hear.

Many people’s first impression of Hillary came from her and Bill’s famous 60 Minutes interview after the 1992 Super Bowl. She said she wasn’t Tammy Wynette, standing by her man, as she stood by her man despite allegations of a 12-year affair with Gennifer Flowers. She may have saved her man’s presidential campaign. Hillary’s 60 Minutes performance garnered a consensus 5-star rating. Only later would it be reconsidered.

In 10 minutes of television, she projected a set of complicated, even conflicting images—forthright but defensive, feisty but dutiful—triggering the mix of skeptical, antagonistic feelings that have defined her with a share of the American public ever since.

The TV Interview That Haunts Hillary Clinton,” Politico, 9/23/16 (LINK)).

At the time, Bill’s philandering wasn’t widely documented. The Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey allegations and revelations would surface during his presidency. Nevertheless, Hillary had to have numerous clues, if not outright knowledge, of Bill’s relaxed attitude towards his marriage vows. Was she in denial?

That relatively charitable explanation became less plausible as accusations about Bill’s liaisons, attempted liaisons, and sexual assaults filled the alternative media and even on occasion the mainstream media, where they were usually dismissed. The accusations fueled Hillary’s fury…against the accusers. She spearheaded the effort to discredit them, contrary to her claim that women don’t lie about sexual harassment.

By the end of Bill’s presidency, it was clear that Hillary’s support was not rooted in love or denial, but crass opportunism at the cost of self-respect. She kept her wagon hitched to her husband’s star because he was her ticket. A woman of modest gifts and almost no political skill, everything she had achieved had been through Bill. She would need him to launch her political career.

How do you account for the American people’s long infatuation with government? Is it love coupled with denial? How many are like the cuckold who repeatedly finds his wife in bed with other men? They remain smitten even as the government goes from lie to lie, betrayal to betrayal. Consider a list of political prevarications, by no means exhaustive.

A “modest” income tax will only be levied on the very rich. A central bank will smooth out economic fluctuations, stop financial crises, and maintain the value of the dollar. President Wilson will keep us out of Europe’s War. World War I will be the war to end all wars and make the world safe for democracy. The New Deal will end the Great Depression. President Roosevelt will keep us out of Europe’s war. World War II will be the war to end all wars and make the world safe for democracy. Dropping atomic bombs on Japan is necessary to save a million American lives. The Communists want to rule the world. The president was killed by a lone gunman. There is light at the end of the tunnel in Vietnam. “I am not a crook.” Whip Inflation Now. Wars against poverty, drugs, and terrorism will eradicate poverty, drugs, and terrorism. Legally mandated racial, ethnic, and gender preferences are not discriminatory. The Muslims want to rule the world. Invading foreign countries, fighting undeclared wars, and regime changes will make the world safe for democracy. Spying on you full-time will make you safer and preserve your freedom. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor; if you like your plan you can keep your plan.

Yet, faith in government runs deep, there’s still that substantial segment who believes whatever it tells them.

However, like Hillary’s support of Bill, most of those who now back the government do so opportunistically, a nice way of saying they’ve been bought off…at the cost of self-respect. The millions receiving redistributed and vote-buying largess are told they have more right to it than the people from whom it was taken. The string-pullers at the top of the lucrative military-industrial-intelligence complex, the medical, education, and welfare rackets, the government debt and central bank swindles, and other sundry scams abandoned morality in their formative years. Bill boinks bimbos; the government is organized crime, so what? A juxtaposition of The Godfather, Part 2 and an infamous Hillary quote offers what passes as rationalization: We’re all part of the same hypocrisy, what difference does it make?

Besides such opportunism and rationalization, Hillary is the template for another psychological dodge: escape into fantasy. Up to her eyeballs in charges of illicit and illegal Russian collusion, her oft-repeated claims that Russia stole the election sound like the bizarre ravings of a street-corner crazy.

Aren’t the unshakeable tenets of American denial just as crazy, if not more so? We can continuously spend more than we earn. In stocks, bonds, debt, and central banks we trust. Underfunded pensions and medical funds will take care of the elderly, even as their numbers steadily increase relative to the number of younger workers who will supposedly support them. The US must maintain global order. The rest of the world likes it when the indispensable nation tells it what to do. Invading foreign countries and instituting a police state at home make us safer. Terrorism and refugee migration are not blowback from our own policies. People’s race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preferences are more important than their merits as individuals. And so on and so on and so on.

It’s tragic when a drunk hits bottom, in a gutter somewhere covered in his own vomit. If, when he regains consciousness his disgust and self-loathing prompt him to acknowledge and address his alcoholism, something good can come from something bad. America has a looming rendezvous with a brick wall. Afterwards, those who have feasted on government will find there’s little to scavenge. Those who denied the impending crash won’t emerge from the wreckage.

The few who do emerge will do so with psychological defenses breached and illusions shattered. Awakened, they’ll offer a hope of recovery and redemption. As with the chastened drunk in the gutter, however, it will be a long, slow slog and there are no guarantees.

You’ll Wish It Was Longer

AMAZON

KINDLE

NOOK