Forget about the vast right-wing conspiracy, how about the vast left-wing conspiracy between the Obama's and the Clinton's? It has been reported that Obama and his minions were behind the disclosures of Hillary using her private e-mail server as her primary server for both private business and government business, which she was not supposed to do as per agency regulations and protocol.
Supposedly, over 55,000 e-mails were posted and approx. 30,000 were deleted by Hillary (and her chosen flunky's) as being personal in nature. She mentioned at her news conference, that some of those personal e-mails were between her and her husband Bill, but Bill said he doesn't use his e-mails and that he only had two occasions he used them, and that's when he was in the White House, not during his wife's stint at the State Dep.t.. Was Hillary telling a lie to justify her illegal deletions of e-mails? Do you take her at her word, using past practices by her in previous situations, from the time she was First Lady, U.S. Senator, and Sec'y. Of State? Can you trust her to be open and transparent?
Not only did she ignore the rules of her department regarding the use of private e-mails and keeping proper records of government business, she didn't sign the form (the State Dep't. Spokeswoman said they couldn't find a signed copy, how convenient), that was required for certifying that all communications be turned in at the conclusion of her service. The question could be asked, are there different rules for people like Hillary Clinton than for others at a lower level? In fact, someone in the State Dep't. was fired, under the watch of Sec'y. Clinton, for doing the same thing she did. Is there a double-standard when it comes to people like the Clinton's? It will be interesting to see how this whole episode plays out. Will the “Teflon” Clinton's slither away again when it looks like they have been caught red-handed breaking the law?
In addition, during her tenure at State, she was soliciting and collecting donations from various countries for the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, that had business with our country. Some of those countries, who in some cases donated millions of dollars, were countries that have oppressive policies, mainly against women and non-Muslims, which Hillary has been touting as being one of her main concerns as her run-up to the presidential campaign. Those countries included Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. It could be asked, did any of these countries expect anything of value from the Sec'y. of State as payback for those generous donations? Does this pass the smell test? Should that activity be normal practice for a U.S. Government official as part of their official duties?
It is a we well known fact that the Obama's and the Clinton's are not bosom buddies, so it is not implausible that Obama might be trying to undermine the potential candidacy of Hillary as being the Democrat nominee as president.
So does our headline, “Pants Suit vs. Empty Suit” have some validity? You make the call, but remember, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it must be a duck. That's our take on this whole sleazy situation between the Obama's and the Clinton's. Do you agree?
Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann
1 comment:
It seems like the only thing she (Hillary) can point to as to why voters should vote for her, is that she is a woman. Just being a woman with nothing else to back it up, like experience, competence, and accomplishments, is not what I would call a reason to vote for that person. Hillary fits that bill as she really is bereft of any real accomplishments, except that she married Slick Willie. Would you want her, as president, answering the phone at 3 AM in the White House?
Post a Comment