Peter Lemiska
Are the Clintons conniving their way back into the White House?
By Peter Lemiska
Hillary Clinton is currently embroiled in a massive criminal investigation centered on breaches in national security, yet she's inches away from assuming control over our federal law enforcement and national security agencies. Some might call that a paradox. Others see it as an egregious affront to our justice system and our political process.
According to virtually every independent poll, most Americans dislike and mistrust Clinton. Current events have reinforced that perception, but evidence of Clinton's inherent dishonesty can be found as far back as 1973, when she was a young lawyer assigned to the Watergate investigation, and again in 1979, when, as Arkansas First Lady and neophyte investor, she parlayed a $1,000 investment into $100,000 – then simply walked away. Her cloud of suspicion, seeded with manifest lies, followed her throughout her husband's presidency, with one scandal following another.
Yet, with Bill Clinton's help, here she stands today, poised to accept her party's nomination for the presidency. Her critics are bewildered and frustrated. Her supporters believe she deserves the nomination, citing her resilience, her experience, or even her gender. Yet they overlook the other things that contributed to her rise to power.
Only Hillary could attempt to depict that unprecedented criminal investigation by 147 FBI agents as a right-wing conspiracy or a routine "security review." Whether it's about mishandling highly classified government information or manhandling young women, the Clintons have proven to be audacious masters of illusion and deceit. Yes, they are both resilient, but also reckless, self-serving, and undeniably devious.
They are now using everything at their disposal to assure victory in November. Only a few barriers stand in her way. The challenge posed by Bernie Sanders was unanticipated, but the Democratic Party and its super-delegates will eventually eliminate that problem.
Their second obstacle is that investigation, which many suggest could lead to Hillary's indictment – formal criminal charges. As time passes, and she becomes more entrenched as the nominee, the likelihood of an indictment diminishes. Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has always put partisanship first, and Clinton's indictment would hand a victory to his political opponents. Besides, Clinton could not have conducted State Department business for four years through an unauthorized server without Obama's knowledge. Does anyone believe he would now allow Clinton to take him down with her? Yes, there would be outrage over Clinton's "vindication," but the administration would find some way to mitigate the damage. They could cite prosecutorial discretion, or invoke phrases like "the will of the people," or the "national interest." Ultimately, it doesn't really matter to Obama what the people think. He has already given us some clues about his intentions. Just a couple of months ago, Obama was praising Clinton's accomplishments, while describing Sanders as "a bright and shiny object," merely a distraction. Does that sound like a President who is planning for Clinton's indictment?
With that affair essentially behind her, there is only one obstacle remaining – her Republican opponent. There's nothing Hillary can do about her trust deficit, but if her eventual Republican adversary is even more controversial and disliked than she is, voters might accept her as the lesser of two evils. What if the Clintons could somehow set up a sham opponent? It sounds bizarre, but it's been done in wrestling and other sporting events. Why not in the political arena? It would be an audacious plan, but not too audacious for the Clintons.
They would have to find someone they trust, probably someone who had a long-standing personal relationship with them.
He would have to come from outside the political arena. Voters no longer trust established politicians on either side of the political aisle. Besides, a politician might decide to wage a real campaign for that coveted position. No, it would have to be someone who's not really interested in the presidency.
Their best choice would have instant name recognition and an established following. He could easily propel himself to the Republican nomination by simply exploiting the pervasive national outrage. He wouldn't even have to understand the issues.
Should their ringer secure the Republican nomination, Hillary would be home-free. And if he were to fall short, he could take his following and launch a viable third-party bid. Either way, Hillary wins.
As conspiracy theories go, it's no more or less credible than the one about Obama's birthplace. Still, there seems to be something off-kilter with Donald Trump's campaign. He just doesn't seem interested in learning those issues he'll need to know cold in an eventual debate with Clinton. Then there's that private telephone conversation between Trump and Bill Clinton, occurring just before Trump announced his presidential run, as reported in the Washington Post. Of course, both men contend their conversation was innocuous. Aides on both sides have said only that Clinton encouraged Trump's efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party. It leads us to wonder if Donald Trump is really the bright and shiny object.
Virtually every national poll concludes that Hillary Clinton would decisively defeat Trump in the general election. He could be the linchpin in an elaborate Clinton conspiracy or just a stroke of good luck for them. Either way, Trump's candidacy offers Hillary her best chance at winning the election and dragging America back to those days when Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate were household words.
© Peter Lemiska
April 11, 2016
Hillary Clinton is currently embroiled in a massive criminal investigation centered on breaches in national security, yet she's inches away from assuming control over our federal law enforcement and national security agencies. Some might call that a paradox. Others see it as an egregious affront to our justice system and our political process.
According to virtually every independent poll, most Americans dislike and mistrust Clinton. Current events have reinforced that perception, but evidence of Clinton's inherent dishonesty can be found as far back as 1973, when she was a young lawyer assigned to the Watergate investigation, and again in 1979, when, as Arkansas First Lady and neophyte investor, she parlayed a $1,000 investment into $100,000 – then simply walked away. Her cloud of suspicion, seeded with manifest lies, followed her throughout her husband's presidency, with one scandal following another.
Yet, with Bill Clinton's help, here she stands today, poised to accept her party's nomination for the presidency. Her critics are bewildered and frustrated. Her supporters believe she deserves the nomination, citing her resilience, her experience, or even her gender. Yet they overlook the other things that contributed to her rise to power.
Only Hillary could attempt to depict that unprecedented criminal investigation by 147 FBI agents as a right-wing conspiracy or a routine "security review." Whether it's about mishandling highly classified government information or manhandling young women, the Clintons have proven to be audacious masters of illusion and deceit. Yes, they are both resilient, but also reckless, self-serving, and undeniably devious.
They are now using everything at their disposal to assure victory in November. Only a few barriers stand in her way. The challenge posed by Bernie Sanders was unanticipated, but the Democratic Party and its super-delegates will eventually eliminate that problem.
Their second obstacle is that investigation, which many suggest could lead to Hillary's indictment – formal criminal charges. As time passes, and she becomes more entrenched as the nominee, the likelihood of an indictment diminishes. Throughout his presidency, Barack Obama has always put partisanship first, and Clinton's indictment would hand a victory to his political opponents. Besides, Clinton could not have conducted State Department business for four years through an unauthorized server without Obama's knowledge. Does anyone believe he would now allow Clinton to take him down with her? Yes, there would be outrage over Clinton's "vindication," but the administration would find some way to mitigate the damage. They could cite prosecutorial discretion, or invoke phrases like "the will of the people," or the "national interest." Ultimately, it doesn't really matter to Obama what the people think. He has already given us some clues about his intentions. Just a couple of months ago, Obama was praising Clinton's accomplishments, while describing Sanders as "a bright and shiny object," merely a distraction. Does that sound like a President who is planning for Clinton's indictment?
With that affair essentially behind her, there is only one obstacle remaining – her Republican opponent. There's nothing Hillary can do about her trust deficit, but if her eventual Republican adversary is even more controversial and disliked than she is, voters might accept her as the lesser of two evils. What if the Clintons could somehow set up a sham opponent? It sounds bizarre, but it's been done in wrestling and other sporting events. Why not in the political arena? It would be an audacious plan, but not too audacious for the Clintons.
They would have to find someone they trust, probably someone who had a long-standing personal relationship with them.
He would have to come from outside the political arena. Voters no longer trust established politicians on either side of the political aisle. Besides, a politician might decide to wage a real campaign for that coveted position. No, it would have to be someone who's not really interested in the presidency.
Their best choice would have instant name recognition and an established following. He could easily propel himself to the Republican nomination by simply exploiting the pervasive national outrage. He wouldn't even have to understand the issues.
Should their ringer secure the Republican nomination, Hillary would be home-free. And if he were to fall short, he could take his following and launch a viable third-party bid. Either way, Hillary wins.
As conspiracy theories go, it's no more or less credible than the one about Obama's birthplace. Still, there seems to be something off-kilter with Donald Trump's campaign. He just doesn't seem interested in learning those issues he'll need to know cold in an eventual debate with Clinton. Then there's that private telephone conversation between Trump and Bill Clinton, occurring just before Trump announced his presidential run, as reported in the Washington Post. Of course, both men contend their conversation was innocuous. Aides on both sides have said only that Clinton encouraged Trump's efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party. It leads us to wonder if Donald Trump is really the bright and shiny object.
Virtually every national poll concludes that Hillary Clinton would decisively defeat Trump in the general election. He could be the linchpin in an elaborate Clinton conspiracy or just a stroke of good luck for them. Either way, Trump's candidacy offers Hillary her best chance at winning the election and dragging America back to those days when Whitewater, Filegate, and Travelgate were household words.
© Peter Lemiska
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
