Hillary’s innocuous comments
In case anybody missed it, there was some big Hillary Clinton news last week. The 3-year state department investigation into Hillary’s emails found “there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information.”
HRC was essentially absolved from wrongdoing for her email server.
Of course, that’s not what we heard about HRC in the news this week. Instead, we saw a lots of stories about HRC ‘smearing’ Tulsi Gabbard and pushing a ‘conspiracy theory’ on a podcast.
What an amazing coincidence that the exonerating report, which was completed over a month ago, was released the very same day Hillary allegedly made those comments.
It doesn’t surprise me that the pseudo-liberals had a meltdown over those comments. After all, if you’re sharing articles from RT.com and Zero-hedge, you are a Russian asset. The pseudo-liberals did what they always do. They believed and shared the information that was fed to them.
What surprises and disappoints me, is the reaction of the media to some basically innocuous comments, that didn’t mention Tulsi Gabbard or make accusations against anyone but the Russians. It’s like we’ve learned nothing from 2016. It’s like they don’t even remember when Hillary warned about Russian interference in 2016, long before most others, and then she was proven right. The media acted almost the same way now as they did then. It’s bizarre and disturbing that, no matter how often HRC is proven right and her critics proven wrong, she never gets the benefit of the doubt.
Here’s the single sentence in an hour long podcast, that people are concerned with:
“They’re also going to do third party again, and I’m not making any predictions but I think they’ve got their eye on somebody who is currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She’s the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far,”
That’s NOT an accusation or smear on Tulsi. If I say, “David Duke endorsed Tulsi. She’s the favorite Dem of the neo-nazis”, is that a smear on Tulsi? NO. She can’t control what Duke says. She did all she could do by disavowing Duke’s endorsement immediately. She should have disavowed the Russians in the same way. Instead, she went after the messenger.
Nobody who’s on Facebook and who observed the way the Russians propped up Trump and Sanders should have any doubt that the Russians actually DO have a bunch of “sites and bots and other ways of supporting her”. For anyone that pays attention and who isn’t too deep within their own filter bubble this is obvious. There’s a chance that it’s not the Russians. As HRC points out in the podcast, the Macedonians and others might be involved again too. Regardless of who’s doing the manipulating, someone’s doing it. There’s no other plausible explanation for the monolithic & synchronously timed attacks against Warren. A million Sanders’ supporters didn’t just independently all come to the conclusion at the same time that Tulsi is good and everyone else, including Bernie’s good friend Elizabeth Warren, is bad.
….
As for why Hillary made these comments, aside from a general warning and the words just coming out naturally during the podcast, she did this to prevent Tulsi from considering a 3rd party run. If she runs as 3rd party now, she’ll prove HRC correct.
