NY Times Exposé of Clinton Foundation

Hillary Clinton seemingly had a lock on the presidency in 2008; but then the powerbrokers in the media snatched it away and handed it to someone who would drive the stick even deeper into the eye of traditional America and those who love it. Now she supposedly has a lock on 2016. Yet the ruling oligarchy’s flagship publication has published an exposé on the cesspool known as the Clinton Foundation that might pry loose her grip from the prize. The Telegraph sums it up with this extract:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Lifting the rock to expose the Clinton Foundation hardly casts Shrillary Rotten in a favorable light. Those who follow politics closely are already aware that she is corruption incarnate. Liberals couldn’t care less; conservatives would vote against her anyway for being a socialist. The “undecided” low-information voters who determine election outcomes are dimly aware of Shrillary’s ethical shortcomings, but not being very bright, need to be reminded. The question is, why would the New York Times remind them?

Three possible answers come immediately to mind:

(1) The kingmakers at the Slimes know this info is going to come out anyway, so best to get it out there now to inoculate her. That way it will be “old news” before the election comes around.

(2) They want to weaken Shrillary, because the game plan calls for her to take the fall in 2016, the way McCain (apparently deliberately) took the fall in 2008. They might feel they can more aggressively advance their objectives without risk of revolt with a “Republican” collectivist authoritarian like Chris Christie in the White House. After all, Bush 43 was virtually a perfect president for the Left: he played Emmanuel Goldstein for the liberal base, allowing statists to indulge in anti-establishment posturing during a perpetual Two Minutes Hate; he dispersed resistance, because conservatives perceived that his opponents were even worse; and all the while he left the border undefended and caused the size of the federal behemoth to explode.

(3) There is an internecine power struggle, and the very powerful Slimes wants someone other than Shrillary to get the nomination.

If the answer is (3), we are left with the chilling question, what Democrat candidate could do even more damage to what’s left of America than an utterly unethical, ultra-left Alinskyite like Shrillary?

Sheila Jackson Lee could not be reached for comment.

hillary-benghazi-what-difference-does-it-make
(4) The elites figure she will lose anyway after this.

On tips from Bob Roberts, Spider, and G. Fox. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Leave a Comment

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!

Send this to a friend