Free Markets, Free People

Can Hillary weather this latest scandal?

I got a bit of a kick out of a John Fund article that asserted that Hillary’s Democratic backers were getting panicky about Hillary Clinton’s chances amid the current scandals.

Here’s where I got a bit of a laugh:

Democrats privately believe that the Clintons can recover from the e-mail and foundation scandals because it’s unlikely reporters will ever find a “smoking gun” that explicitly links foreign donations with public actions. But Democrats also know that other scandals may soon be unearthed. And if they do, not only will Hillary Clinton prove unable to establish herself as an “authentic” candidate, she also will establish herself as a pro at conducting an “authentic” cover-up.

Seriously?  One more scandal?  A few more scandals?

What IS the magic number?  Please tell us.

Bill Clinton’s speaking fees go up and his speeches just happen to be in countries where the Secretary of State – that’d be Hillary Clinton – can help them get what they want.  The foundation they both are a part of spends 10 to 15% of 500 million dollars on the charities it supposedly is fundraising for.  The woman’s emails when she was Secretary of State are gone – well, except those she chose to have us see.  And her emails about the foundation?

Private and on the same server that she willfully set up in contravention of a well known rule that required her to do her official business on her official email address.

But, you know, there’s no “smoking gun”.

Yeah, if you’re a crack addict with the IQ of a turnip.

These are the Clinton’s though, and there seems to be no end to the number of times this criminal gang is let off the hook.  Laws, you see, are for the little people.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

11 Responses to Can Hillary weather this latest scandal?

  • by that same token then, on what basis do we make the assumption that she will not be able to whether this particular storm? After all, she’s weathered so many in the past and still there is a legion of idiots ready to fall over into whatever motive destruction happens to await them.

    then too, from the opposite end of this, comes the question who else is in position to run for president on the Democrat side? Nobody that I can see. As an offhand observation, it must be a real problem working up any degree of enthusiasm for a presidential run when you know you’re exposing yourself to becoming the next Vince Foster.

    the question to my mind at this point is not whether or not Hillary Clinton is going to survive the primary season, and whether or not her actually running for president is inevitable. The bigger question is whether or not there will be enough people who have reached their threshold, who have decided she won’t get their vote come the general.

  • Elections don’t require evidence like a court does.

    Also, like insider trading a pattern will be enough.

    Furthermore, there is a risk that foreign powers have the emails to prove this and can squeeze Hillary to do things they want.

    Remember Libya? Qatar managed to get Hillary to back Europe over Obama’s objections.

    Doesn’t this explain why she was so worried about Benghazi she lied about it?

  • I remind you of another famous democrat, the Honorable James Michael Curley.

    A sample;

    “Curley’s entrance into politics included the traditional practice of Ward politics such as knocking on doors, drumming up votes, and taking complaints. His easy affability combined with his connections in the underworld quickly allowed him to use graft and corruption in the city services to solve constituent problems. Consequently, Curley rose rapidly through the Democratic Party’s corrupt machine politics.
    Curley’s first public notoriety came when he was elected to Boston’s Board of Aldermen in 1904 while in prison on a fraud conviction.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Michael_Curley

    Of course, Hillary doesn’t have the charisma of Curley, but she has more money.

  • I’m completely sure the downtrodden government defendants that make up Hillary’s base will have no problem electing a money grubbing 1%er who has a problem with the truth and influence peddling as the standard bearer.
    There is nothing that makes me think otherwise.

  • I go back to the metaphor of spotting aircraft on a star-lit night. You look for “holes in the stars”.

    In proving fraud cases, you point the jury to things we all know should be there, but are conspicuous in their absence, such as accounting using accepted accounting practices, or a total lack of accounting.

    Where there’s evidence of evidence spoliation (destruction or tampering), the defendant may not even allude to that evidence in that trial. The law PRESUMES the evidence was damning against them.

    Here, we have all that in the record, admitted by Ol’ Walleyes. RICO prosecution is warranted.

  • But, you know, there’s no “smoking gun”.

    Yeah, if you’re a crack addict with the IQ of a turnip.

    Sure, but these news reports are catering to those who are oblivious, and determined to remain oblivious.

    If they didn’t wake up over Whitewater, Vince Foster, missing billing records, Lewinsky, withdrawal of Bill’s law licence, and Benghazi, I don’t know what would constitute a “smoking gun” to make such oblivious people abandon the Clintons.

    Hillary could be caught naked in bed with a dead, stabbed Huma Abedin, holding a bloody knife in her hand. and there are people who would say it wasn’t a “real scandal” – it was all ginned up by partisan Republicans to make her look bad.

    • I liked the Eleanor Clift riff…

      “She might need to clean up her act…a bit”.

  • Of course there isn’t a smoking gun…

    Why the hell do you think they wiped the server for? Giggles?

  • The magic number is n+infinity.
    The cynical side of me thinks this is all coming out now so that when the general election rolls around the democrat party media will yawn and a call all of this old news.

  • It does serve however to remind one of the intelligence and moral characteristics of one’s opponents ladies and gentlemen, does it not?

    And reduces the chance there will be even a modicum of forgiveness found in my soul should it all go to the wall as a result of their poor choices.