The presidential candidate who has been accused of being the “Milli Vanilli” of politics may have her public lines so well-rehearsed that she doesn’t need to lip sync them, but behind the façade is the unmistakable presence of the rot:
F--k off! It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut."
"Stay the f--k back, stay the f--k back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f--king do as I say, Okay!?"
"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f--king ass over here and grab those bags!"
"Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't f--k her here!”
With that kind of talk, no wonder this white person doesn't want to encounter any of those “super-predators” on the street; they might teach her a thing or two about what to expect when not speaking “respectfully.” And Hillary Clinton has the gall to accuse Donald Trump of being temperamentally “unfit” to be president? Well, he is—which only means we have two candidates who temperamentally unfit to be president.
But then again, Hillary Clinton is, in her own way, a “super-predator” too. The first three of the above comments were directed at men assigned the thankless task of serving in her security detail. The fourth comment, of course, gave her away. The foulmouthed, insensitive and contemptuous person who Clinton is in fact has had her public image scraped clean by the media and coated with a varnish of carefully crafted deception and fabrication. Virtually everything that comes out of Clinton’s mouth in public is a prefabricated false statement—and when it is not, it is only a well-rehearsed line that has no meaning unto itself. But people have become so accustomed to it that Clinton’s lies are just part of the package; people pretend that it is “OK” because of the “unfair” attacks on her, and she must be permitted to “protect” herself with a wall of lies.
It is thus with some amusement to hear Clinton say she is “very experienced” with men who “go off the reservation.” There can be little doubt that for Clinton, “going off the reservation” is something she does every day. It nauseates me every time I see her on television giving an interview and displaying her deceit so cleverly, knowing that everything she says is calculated right down to the last syllable, rather than a true reflection of what she believes.
Clinton’s contempt for people who she believes are “beneath” her—and that includes just about everyone else—goes double for her contempt for rules and regulations that govern ethical and lawful behavior. “Going off the reservation” obviously applies to her sense of ethics, in evidence from the State Department’s Inspector General’s report that found repeated evidence of Clinton’s apparent obliviousness to rules governing the handling of classified documents, public recordkeeping and security. On May 8, Clinton stated on CBS’ “Face the Nation” "Well, as I have said many times ... I was absolutely permitted" to use a private email server. But Factcheck.org tells us that according the IG, that is a “false” statement. Save for Clinton’s diehard sycophants, everyone knows that Clinton is lying; Factcheck’s analysis of the IG report is that everything Clinton has said in her defense has either been an outright lie, or a shameless twisting of facts. Factcheck also noted that:
“The IG report said Clinton ‘had an obligation’ to discuss her email system with the department, but it could find ‘no evidence’ that Clinton sought approval for her unusual email arrangement. If she did, the report says her request would have been denied by the bureaus of Diplomatic Security and Information Resource Management.”
The IG noted just how extensive Clinton used her mobile devices to conduct official business on her private server. Taking account just the 30,000 emails she agreed to release, that is an average of 20 emails every day for four years—and that does not include the 30,000 that she illegally deleted, or so that is only the amount she claims she deleted. We will never know the actual number, or what those “too personal” emails actually were about.
“Throughout Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the FAM stated that normal day-to-day operations should be conducted on an authorized AIS, yet OIG found no evidence that the Secretary requested or obtained guidance or approval to conduct official business via a personal email account on her private server. According to the current CIO [chief information officer] and Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security, Secretary Clinton had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices, who in turn would have attempted to provide her with approved and secured means that met her business needs. However, according to these officials, DS [Bureau of Diplomatic Security] and IRM [Bureau of Information Resource Management] did not — and would not — approve her exclusive reliance on a personal email account to conduct Department business, because of the restrictions in the FAM and the security risks in doing so.”
The Associated Press story following up on the IG’s report noted that Clinton’s frequent claims that she is “willing” to speak with investigators was merely for public consumption. In fact, she and her key aids refused to be questioned by the IG (and we can assume, the FBI): “According to the findings, she claimed approval she didn’t have and declined to be interviewed for the report despite saying ‘I’m more than ready to talk to anybody anytime.’ Scrutiny of her unusual email practices appeared to be unwelcome, despite her contention those practices were well known and ‘fully above board.’”
It seems that only Clinton’s inner circle of Amazons knew the extent of the dependency on keeping the outside ignorant of their method of communication, and that other state department officials were certainly “’Unaware of the scope or extent’ of her email practices,” according to the IG. Not only that, but “Two employees in the Office of Information Resources Management discussed concerns about her use of a personal email account in separate 2010 meetings. One of the employees stressed in one of the meetings that the information being transmitted needed to be preserved to satisfy federal records laws…They were instructed by the director of the department ‘never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again,’ according to the report.”
During a May, 2015 press conference, Clinton asserted that “The system we used was set up for President Clinton’s office. And it had numerous safeguards. It was on property guarded by the Secret Service. And there were no security breaches.” Forget the suggestion that the first Clinton administration was engaged in illegal concealment of public records; the IG report concluded that
“Evidence emerged of hacking attempts, though it’s unclear whether they were successful…On Jan. 9, 2011, an adviser to former President Bill Clinton notified the State Department’s deputy chief of staff for operations that he had to shut down the server because he suspected ‘someone was trying to hack us and while they did not get in i didnt (sic) want to let them have the chance to. Later that day, he sent another note. ‘We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min.’ The following day the deputy chief emailed top Clinton aides and instructed them not to email the secretary ‘anything sensitive.’” There was no evidence that this security “suggestion” was ever taken seriously by Clinton and her associates. The AP went to say that Clinton’s email system was so vulnerable that “It appeared to allow users to connect openly over the internet to control it remotely.”
Last September Clinton again asserted that “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.” But as noted before, Clinton was again lying; she neither bothered to request clarification or approval for storing classified information on her private server, nor would it have been approved if she had. She merely took what she wanted, regardless of rules and regulations. No one and nothing was going to tell her what she could or couldn’t do.
Clinton has defended herself by claiming that “other” secretaries of state used personal email accounts, but this was again a false statement. Only Colin Powell used a personal email account, but he did not use a personal server to deliberately conceal all communications from public access. And yes, Clinton is running for president, not Powell.
How can we trust someone with the highest office in land who can’t tell a truthful word if her life depended on it? How can we trust anyone so dull that she doesn’t know that 2,000 of the emails she agreed to hand contained classified and above information?
Jonah Goldberg, writing in the Chicago Tribune, noted that “From the earliest days of this scandal — and it is a scandal — Clinton has lied. Unlike Donald Trump’s lies, which he usually vomits up spontaneously like a vesuvian geyser, Clinton’s were carefully prepared, typed up and repeated for all the world to hear over and over again…I would think this is an important distinction. Neither of the candidates is worthy of the office in my eyes, but voters might discount many of Trump’s deceits as symptoms of his glandular personality. Much like Vice President Joe Biden, who always gets a pass for launching errant fake-fact missiles from the offline silo that is his mouth, Trump is often seen as entertainingly spontaneous…Meanwhile, Clinton — who lives many time zones away from the word “entertaining” — is marketing herself as the mature and upstanding grown-up. She does nothing spontaneously. And that means all of her lies are premeditated.”
There can be no doubt that Bernie Sanders has fought her tooth-and-nail to the very end because of his own contempt for the complete fraud that Clinton is. Pundits argue if she is “right” or “left,” but those words have no meaning when it is applied to her political philosophy, because she has none. Clinton has only one purpose in life, and that is to serve her own megalomania. Good god, how could this awful person have gotten this far? Thanks a lot, Bill Clinton, for the crime of actually marrying this person and allowing her work off your own “popularity.” Regardless of what she believes, no one would have given her the time of day otherwise, so odious she is in private, and deceitful in public.