Search This Blog

Monday, July 10, 2017

Dirt On Hillary

It's been a strange day regarding Hillary Clinton.  Okay, every day is strange regarding Hillary Clinton.  Today the news  has been even more strange than usual.

First, Jullian Assange of wikileaks tweeted that the FBI is reopening the Hillary email investigation and that agents inside the FBI are ecstatic as a result.  Is this true?  Who knows?  Assange is not exactly Man of the Year when it comes to honesty or even accuracy.  Nevertheless, he often does get information about important news that gets missed elsewhere.  If this is true, it is big news.  After all, Comey and the now-tainted Loretta Lynch took Hillary off the hook for her actions because she had "no intent" despite there being no need for intent under the relevant criminal statute.  It would be the rough equivalent of a man pushing another guy off a cliff to his death being left unindicted because he did not use a gun.  It's murder under the statutes; no gun use is required.  On the other hand, this could just be a phony tweet from Assange because he likes to mess in these things.  No doubt there will soon be tweets and columns speculating that the tweet is the result of the meeting between Putin and Trump at the G-20 the other day.  For these folks, everything is a conspiracy.

Second, the New York Times is now saying that the President's son met with an attorney who happens to be Russian during the campaign because he was told that she might have damaging information on Hillary Clinton.  Oh, the horror!  It's amazing that the Times considers this big news.  We heard about the meeting the previous day and the President's son confirmed that he had met with this attorney.  The Times then made a big deal because it says that Trump, Jr. had been told that the attorney might have damaging info on Hillary.  The President's son confirms this too.  So????  It's amazing that the Times wants readers to think it is a big deal that a presidential campaign would meet with a person who claimed to have damaging info on the opponent.  That practice is so common in every campaign that it has a customary name; it's called opposition research.  The Democrat National Committee and the Clinton campaign had whole departments devoted only to opposition research.  The GOP had groups with a similar purpose.  They each scoured the land looking for some ammunition to use against the opponents.  It's a normal part of our election system.  So why is the Times making such a big deal about it?  The answer is simple:  there is no proof of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia even after a year of searching for it.  The Times has gotten desperate.


No comments: