Lest there be any doubt, in her mind Hillary Clinton was the most qualified person ever to run for president. Therefore, the fact that she will not be the next president cannot be her fault. Makes sense, right?
Continuing this line of reasoning, we are drawn to the obvious conclusion that her failure to win the election must be the fault of someone else. In fact, that person or persons must be considerably removed from her since her close associates were hand-picked by Hillary. Again, consistent with her own belief in her own infallibility, those she selected to serve her must have been the perfect choices.
So where is she to assign the reason for Mr. Trump’s victory? She’s used the “vast right-wing conspiracy” meme to explain away her problems during her husband’s presidency, so that one might be a little dated. Clearly she’s found an ideal explanation for her loss in the form of the alleged Russian interference in the election. Yes, she would state that the conclusion must be drawn that Mr. Putin did it. And he did it in the spirit of a personal vendetta.
Let’s take a look at this woman’s twisted thinking – and at the same time be thankful that her political career has finally arrived at the ignominious end it so richly deserves.
What we learn here is that, “Despite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claiming otherwise, Hillary is sticking to the ‘Russia-did-it’ narrative preferred by the Left.”
Of course, Mr. Assange might be lying. We cannot tell for certain. What we do know for certain is that lying is not something that is alien to Mrs. Clinton. So believing anything she says is a pretty reckless thing to do.
With that warning, we examine Mrs. Clinton’s story with great skepticism:
“Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that the hacking attacks carried out by Russia against her campaign and the Democratic National Committee were intended ‘to undermine our democracy’ and were ordered by Vladimir V. Putin “because he has a personal beef against me.’
“Speaking to a group of donors in Manhattan, Mrs. Clinton said that Mr. Putin, the Russian president, had never forgiven her for the accusation she made in 2011, when she was secretary of state, that parliamentary elections his country held that year were rigged.
“‘Putin publicly blamed me for the outpouring of outrage by his own people, and that is the direct line between what he said back then and what he did in this election,’ Mrs. Clinton said.”
Well, what’s to be said about all of this?
First, we must be very careful here to state that while we would condemn computer hacks or other nefarious actions to rig or influence an election, it is very hard to equate Hillary’s warning about “undermining our democracy” with preventing a Hillary Clinton victory. Given Mrs. Clinton’s disdain for our laws, traditions, Constitution, and who knows what else, it could be argued that preventing a Hillary presidency would actually support our democracy.
Again, no one here is justifying any alleged hacking or any illegal acts to derail Mrs. Clinton’s presidency. She was actually lousy enough of a candidate that she should have been able to fail on her own lack of merits. And she did.
Second, actions do have consequences. Going around accusing foreign leaders of rigging their own elections is going to upset people. And they might just return the favor. If her relationship with Mr. Putin was poisoned, Hillary didn’t help the cause.
Third, there is no “direct line” between Mr. Putin and Mrs. Clinton’s loss at the polls as she claims. At least not one that has been proven.
The US intelligence community has sent mixed signals. Mr. Obama has refused to state that foreign hacking actually changed the result, and has admitted that any evidence that might be found of Russian meddling would likely be classified and thus not available for public inspection and review. So we would just have to trust him. Sure.
Fourth, Mrs. Clinton desperately needs an explanation for her loss that exonerates her and puts the blame somewhere else. Why? There are a lot of very wealthy donors who are not happy with the results of their collective investment of $1.2 billion in Hillary’s failed campaign for president.
Hillary’s Democratic pals who hold office or hope to will not be pleased if some of these contributors close their wallets in future elections because of Hillary’s electoral catastrophe. Her political career may be over, but they clearly don’t want theirs to suffer the same fate.
In summary, there are plenty of reasons for Hillary to blame her failure on Mr. Putin. And unlike the evidence of Russian interference, Hillary’s motivations to conjure the story are there for everyone to see.
Source: Clash Daily