Everybody, including Herself herself, knows that the leftwingnut extremist base of the Democrat Party loathes and distrusts Hillary Rodham Clinton for many reasons, but most prominent among them because she is a greedy, money-grubbing corruptress that is the Chrysler Building of hypocrisy when she makes her screeching communist panderings, as she has been doing non-stop for the past year in a frantic effort to preempt Elizabeth Warren and then stay ahead of, or even with, "Weekend Bernie" Sanders.
Now I will cut her some slack for the quote below because she was in a presumably friendly media setting at last night's New Hampshire town hall gathering and was probably at least somewhat justified in not seeing this question coming. But was she really, truly, not better prepared for a question about why she accepted almost seven hundred grand in speaking fees from Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs than this?:
Hillary Clinton gave no ground to Bernie Sanders over her [communist] credentials at a televised forum Wednesday night, but the most notable moment came when [Mrs.] Clinton was forced to answer a question about her Wall Street ties from moderator Anderson Cooper.
The night featured few fireworks, but [Mrs.] Clinton found herself on the defensive when presented with one of Sanders’ key talking points: that she shouldn’t have taken high amounts of speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.
“Well, I don’t know.....
The three words you are NEVER, EVER supposed to say when running for POTUS. Especially if you are The Smartest Woman In The World.
....That’s what they offered,” she said when asked whether she needed to be paid for three speeches amounting to $675,000, which Sanders often points to as evidence that she is beholden to Wall Street.
Heavens to Murgatroyd. In those four words she just validated everything Sanders has said about her Wall Street umbilical. Hell, the answer wasn't even responsive to the question - Why did she NEED to be paid for those GS speeches? - which could have afforded her an on-ramp for more of her "pleading poverty" BS, at least. She can't think on her sensibly-shoed feet at all, can she?
And then the toe-curling got so bad that it sent viewers' tootsies straight through their plantar fascias:
“Every [commissar and] secretary of state that I know has done that.”
You mean like Condoleeza Rice? Colin Powell? James Baker? George Schultz? Alexander Haig? Henry Kissinger? Or does she really ONLY know Democrat CoS's?
You know how I've been saying for years that the Donk "establishment" has no more enthusiasm for Her Nib than the Donk grassroots, but they feel a "Gotta go to the dentist/Gotta eat our brussel sprouts because it's/they're good for us" nose-holding duty to give hoisting the old puffgut into her decades-long infernal power dream the "old college try"? And how the media, along those same lines, is desperately rooting for her to do something, ANYTHING, to make that thankless, unglamorous, back-breaking job easier so as to spare them metaphorical hernias? And how when she screws the pooch this badly, they can't contain their wincing and cringing?
Behold the leftwing Tweetosphere at that moment:
One thing that hasn't changed for the last two years: [Mrs.] Clinton really doesn't have a solid answer on paid speeches.twitter.com/danmericaCNN/s…
Wow. Spectacularly bad answer on Goldman Sachs speeches, even though she must have known it was coming.
[Mrs.] Clinton’s answer for why she took Wall Street speaking fees is because she wasn’t sure at the time she was going to run for president. #Bad
This segment wasn't just brutal, Mr. White; it will be in every Bernie Sanders ad from here to the finish line.
Now, to be fair, there really wasn't any good answer that Mrs. Clinton could have given to this question. But what was the best answer she could have offered up? If I were advising her, I would have told her to apologize for taking the Goldman Sachs cash. After all, an apology is a get-out-of-jail-free card for liberals, isn't it? Just say "I'm sorry" and pretend to be contrite and that makes everything all better for them. Just apologize and promise never to do it again and that'll be that.
Of course, everybody would know it was phony-baloney, plastic-banana, good-time-rock&roll horse manure. But when a leftie says those words, his/her listeners are morally obligated to take them at face value, right?
The obstacle, of course, is that by even pretending to apologize, that implies an admission of being....wrong. A confession that Hillary Clinton is as incapable of making as Arthur Fonzerelli....
....no matter how contemptuously insincere it would have been. Which just illustrates all over again how terrible a liar the Ugly Dutchess is that she wasn't even willing to make the attempt, but lamely fell back on her "I"m just a [filthy, stinking rich] little old grandmother" routine.
See what we might have to look forward to for the next five years?
That and angry, mendacious scandal denials:
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign is crying foul over details being released about emails that were forwarded to the private email server she used while [commissar] of state, saying "selective details," — including information that the some of the communications referred to undercover CIA officers — are being leaked to give a false impression of the communications.
"This shows yet again how the leaking of selective details gives a completely false impression about what is actually contained in the emails forwarded to Hillary Clinton," [Rodham] campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told NBC News.
"Whenever the full contents of these emails are learned, there is invariably less than meets the eye."
Uh-huh:
A Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that the State [Commissariat] has classified seven more of Hillary Clinton's private emails as "top secret."
"There are more than twenty-two, and it's not just one or two more," Representative Chris Stewart told the Washington Examiner, referring to the twenty-two emails deemed top secret by the State [Commissariat] last week. "It's a more meaningful number than that."...
"These were classified at the top secret level, and in some cases, above that," he said.
Stewart said his years of experience handling highly classified material allowed him to recognize immediately the sensitive nature of [Mrs.] Clinton's emails. The Utah-2 Republican said he had never seen anything more sensitive than the information contained within the emails.
"They do reveal classified methods, they do reveal classified sources, and they do reveal human assets," he said during an appearance on Fox's America's Newsroom earlier in the day.
On second thought, we'll only have the next year to look forward to Herself's angry, mendacious denials about THIS scandal, because after she's safely elected, it would become "old news". And it will, of course, take even her some time to generate all the new future scandals to come.
Just thought I would provide that clarification.
Oh, and the House Oversight Committee will be kicking off their own Emailgate investigation, FWIW.
No comments:
Post a Comment