I apologize in advance for bringing this person up, especially if you’re trying to eat breakfast, but Hillary Clinton has inserted herself back into the news again.
The biggest news was her announcement of what she’s allegedly not going to do, and that’s running for President in 2024, which we’ll all believe and celebrate when we don’t see it.
She also proved that the man who beat her in 2016 (and he did, Hillary, he really, really did) lives rent-free in her head 24/7, as she continued to assail Donald Trump for allegedly not being careful in handling classified documents. (Okay, I’ll wait until you finish laughing…Done? Good, let’s proceed.) Hillary rejected any comparisons of the heavy-handed raid on Trump to the way she skated on her email scandal, insisting that the government confirmed there was no classified information on her devices. As you can see at the link above, that claim left a lot of people more slack-jawed than Monica Lewinsky.
National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss also pointed out another problem with Hillary’s claim:
It is true that her situation and Trump’s are not comparable, but not the way she thinks. For instance, she didn’t have the power to declassify any documents she wanted; Trump did. One of the dumber lines in that linked story is this: “The Atlantic went further on Wednesday and insisted that if anyone else besides Trump possessed classified documents that ‘they’d be prosecuted.’" Well, anyone besides Trump or any other former President, who all have the power to declassify documents, which is why they wouldn’t be prosecuted. Also, Trump’s documents were stored in boxes inside a padlocked room at his home that was secured by both private security and the Secret Service. Hillary’s were on random laptops and Blackberries and sent over an unsecured, gerry-rigged private server in her bathroom.
In addition, even if they hypothetically didn’t contain classified information, they were under subpoena when she had them erased with Bleachbit and smashed with hammers, which should be a separate indictable offense on its own. It’s called “obstruction of justice.” Ever heard the term, Hillary?
But that wasn’t the end of Hillary’s gaslighting. She also said, “Did I ever for a nanosecond think, ‘I’m gonna declare victory and try to get the Democrats to refuse to certify the election’? No.”
Well, not for a nanosecond, but she did spend four years calling Trump an “illegitimate President,” claiming the election was stolen by Russia, and seeding fake oppo research to the FBI to gin up a bogus investigation of that false narrative to hinder his Administration. A number of Democrats also tried to challenge the results of that election, including, ironically, the Chairman of the January 6th Committee.
That Committee is trying desperately to indict Trump because of the actions of his followers, claiming that his rhetoric is to blame for their actions. And it’s not just the riot: they’re also trying to accuse any GOP Congress members who questioned the election and suggested there be alternate Electors of being insurrectionists.
Okay, Hillary, under those standards, is your rhetoric responsible for your insurrectionist, democracy-assaulting celebrity followers’ attempt to pressure Trump Electors to ignore the voters of their states and switch their votes to you?
Sadly for you, the Internet is not like your Blackberry: it can’t be erased. And neither can all of our memories.
Speaking of people who deny denying elections, President Biden’s demagogic denunciations of Trump voters as enemies of democracy has inspired conservative media to dig up the records of all the Democrats who claimed previous elections were rigged against them, and there are some pretty prominent names. Conspicuous among them is Biden’s own press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who when confronted with her own history of denying election results, predictably insisted that that was completely different and any such comparisons are “ridiculous.”
I think her critics just don’t understand the most basic concept of Democratic politics: all elections are fair and above question if Democrats win, but if they lose, the minority vote was suppressed (even if it was at a record high) and the election was stolen.
This is hardly a recent phenomenon. One of my writers tells me that his dad, who founded his local Republican Party, used to joke that “No Democrat ever lost a ‘fair’ election.” His dad died in 1993.