Hillary Clinton’s negligent handling of classified emails should not have come as a shock to anyone who has paid attention for the past generation. Duplicity and incompetence are embedded in her DNA; simple human nature dictates that what she has done repeatedly, she will likely try again.
The same news media that, in 2012, revealed that Mitt Romney had once given a fellow student a wedgie (Horrors!), will likely remain mum on Hillary’s far-more sinister abuses of her fellow citizens. In the months to come, voters deserve a refresher course on the facts — not rumors and accusations — proving that Hillary Clinton is even more disingenuous and duplicitous than they think, and not the defender of the middle class that she claims to be.
Her own party, as a whole, knows it. In rare moments of candor (or public posturing?) liberal Democrats have expressed outrage at the scorched earth tactics of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Remember when Bill, your first gentleman (!) and economic czar in waiting, sold pardons to the highest bidders toward the end of his presidency? Most notoriously, international tax cheat and financier Marc Rich was pardoned after numerous gifts were given on his behalf to the Clintons, leading Margaret Carlson of Time magazine to raise the question of a quid pro quo, since the pardon was “entirely without justification.” Now all but forgotten, pardons were granted (or sold?) to members of the Puerto Rican separatist group FALN, convicted of committing acts of terror on U.S. soil. Attorney General Janet Reno and top law enforcement officials objected, but to no avail. Hillary was planning a Senate run from New York and thought — apparently — that such a move would appease the state’s large Puerto Rican population (clearly an insult to the vast majority of law-abiding Puerto Ricans). As a plus, all the money rolling in from Pardons-Are-Us (Open all night for your convenience!) would offer much-needed campaign funds. Is this a harbinger of Clinton 45? We’re not supposed to ask.
Getting back to sensitive government data, does the name Craig Livingstone ring a bell? Does anyone remember Filegate? All administrations, as a matter of routine, obtain FBI files on potential appointees. These files contain information mostly from background checks. The Clintons, however, requested hundreds of files, many of them on Reagan and Bush 41 officials, other Republicans, and enemies such as FBI agent Gary Aldrich, and Linda Tripp, with whom Monica Lewinsky confided details of her affair with the president.
These files were obtained — illegally — by a former bar bouncer named Craig Livingstone, whose greatest contribution to political life had been following George H.W. Bush around in a chicken suit. FBI director Louis Freeh publicly lamented that his organization had been used (and “victimized”) by the White House for opposition research, damaging the credibility of both law enforcement and the presidency.
Linda Tripp testified that this information was shared with the Democratic National Committee. But the PR liability for the Clintons was Livingstone himself, who bore the image of a buffoon. Despite his access to sensitive government data, no one had bothered to do a background check on him. And who hired him, everyone wanted to know. According to all accounts, he had been hired by Mrs. Clinton. The FBI, as quoted in Time magazine confirmed it. Soon Filegate, in 1996, became an official scandal, prompting Senate inquiry. Livingstone testified that the incriminating files were obtained by mistake and, predictably, no one took responsibility for the numerous security standards that were violated in procuring sensitive government data. Furthermore, no one, least of all Mrs. Clinton, took responsibility for hiring Livingstone. Despite all earlier indications of their working relationship, administration officials circled the wagons and publicly denied her involvement. It became a chorus of “Not me,” similar to the “Not me” gremlins who follow the mischievous children in the Family Circus cartoons. The public was left to presume that a shady ex-bar bouncer had just wandered in off the streets and assumed the job of White House hatchet man.
Why drag up scandals from twenty years ago? Because her unrepentant past reveals a pattern and a preview. To the Clintons, public service has never been a goal unto itself. Elective office has always been an avenue to adulation, money, sexual gratification and lots of cool stuff. Judging by their past behavior, one would be naive not to suspect scandal at the slightest hint. America, the eyes of history are now upon you! You have already inhaled the stench of the corruption of President Clinton II and the sycophants in her orb. I mean, c’mon, a chicken suit? At least the Kennedys maintain a modicum of class.
A fraud can only succeed as far as she is allowed. To win, she is banking, not on her own guile, but on your complacency and diminished expectations of leadership. If she finds her poll numbers tanking, she can always hire a sleazy sidekick full of dirty tricks to push our expectations even lower.