Next POTUS: a Rapist's Laughing Lawyer?

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups [read: Black Lives Matter], parties [read: Democrats], nations and epochs [the Obama years], it is the rule.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Clearly Mr. Nietzsche never met corrupt American politicians (and specifically today's progressives).

In 1975, current Democratic front-runner, then Hillary Rodham, was already a demonstratively corrupt 27-year old lawyer. What was this purported “great champion” of women's rights doing then? She was successfully defending Thomas Alfred Taylor, a 41-year old sexual predator accused of raping a 12-year old girl. What did she do shortly after that? This lucky lady married a fellow cad, her “Prince Charming” Bill. She also became a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigations—a post she was later fired from for unethical practices like lying! (Indeed, today, with a well established reputation as a habitual fibber, does this longstanding pattern of immoral conduct surprise anyone?) However, back then her misbehavior was obviously disconcerting to chief counsel Jerry Zeifman, Hillary's supervisor. Of his reason for her termination (and his further rare refusal to write a recommendation letter), he said:

“Because she was a liar,” Mr. Zeifman said in a March of 2008 interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution [by redrafting rules related to the president's right to counsel], the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

In hindsight, it appears that Hillary has always viewed “the rules” as something that only apply to the “little people”—everyone else—but never herself. Decades later, this dynamic is plainly apparent in light of her own rogue actions and Nixonian style wrongdoing: the Server-gate scandal (in which a private server was set up and used to restrict and control the flow of government information—and state secrets—in clear violation of federal law).

For context and comparison, it was, in part, the Watergate audio tapes which compelled Richard Nixon resignation in 1974. In 2016, will the same be true of Hillary (assuming she gets that far)? I coyly refer Hillary's taped 1980 interview with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in which she repeatedly cackles like a magpie at the lenient sentence given the man she defended of the rape of a minor. Will Mrs. Clinton continue to get a complete pass for this shockingly brazen and pathologically unfeeling 1980 voice recording? Or will this supremely arrogant figure at the nexus of federal investigations related to Server-gate, Charity-gate and Benghazi finally meet her well deserved Nixonian fate? Certainly, one wonders what it will take for the American electorate to finally wake up to the clear and present danger of this insider creature of Washington; a “for sale” amoral power broker who fully expects a queenly return to the White House in 2017?

This 40 year travesty adds to the stench of multiple his-and-hers scandals which have dogged the Clintons from seemingly the inception of their political lives—so many scandals who can keep track of them all? Ultimately, however, the kick in the head is not what the Clintons repeatedly get away with, it's why any sane person would support crooked Hillary's presidential aspirations.

Speaking of which, the first person who should get his head professionally examined forthwith is Washington Post “fact checker” Glenn Kessler. His dubious relationship with truth is as tenuous as his colleague's, fellow propagandist Hillary-defender Ruth Marcus. Precisely as she, Mr. Kessler shamelessly manipulates facts—and misconstrues history—as overt political cover for Mrs. Clinton's gleefully inappropriate reaction to her previously mentioned 1975 slick lawyering. To this Orwellian “fact checker,” the victim in this tale isn't the defenseless 12-year old child, it's Hillary (taken to task by the National Republican Senatorial Committee who accurately produced a political ad on this subject last month.) Moreover, all the important details are spun to be misleading. For example, Mr. Kessler implies that defendant Taylor was entitled to “replace his male court-appointed lawyer with a female attorney.” He wasn't: public defenders are the luck of the draw (usually determined by caseload). Therefore, any change is at the discretion of the individual judge. Second, while a judge or a prosecutor can recommend a given attorney, neither could have compelled an “unwilling” Hillary to accept a client truly abhorrent to her. Notice Mr. Kessler's intentionally misleading summary of the situation: “In other words, Clinton was a court-appointed attorney, given the case despite personal objections.” In the same vein, earlier in the piece, he scribbles, “The judge went through the list of a half-dozen women practicing law in the county and picked Clinton.” All of this verbiage wrongly implies arm-twisting where there is none.

Upon close examination of the actual facts, Mr. Kessler's fictional interpretation is at odds with Mrs. Clinton's own recollection: “The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton in the interview. “Would I do it as a favor for him?” By definition, a favor is a voluntary kindness, not something one “must” do. Why then this propagandist spin of events? To promote a false narrative that Hillary wanted no part of this infamous case. Follow this sycophant's slippery logic: as an “unwilling” party, she's not responsible for the domino effect of its consequences. Mr. Kessler's fallacious underlying theme is Hillary Clinton as “victim” of Republicans now, and the legal system then, as a young attorney.

In any case, the long-nosed Mr. Kessler is more than worthy of his own four Pinocchio scale—and then some. After all, if what this intrepid columnist claims is true why would Hillary call this tragic circumstance (by any rational measure) “fascinating?” In truth, the voice on that audio tape indicates the kind of person who likely enjoys pulling the wings off of helplessly beautiful things, like butterflies. Or perhaps someone who would not give a second thought to exploit a little girl's trauma for another's legal benefit. Worse, Hillary's tone is secretive and almost conspiratorial: the naughty whisper of something wrongly done, and jubilantly gotten away with.

What Mr. Kessler clearly ignores is that Mrs. Clinton relished in the challenge of getting her client exonerated, and was giddy about the questionable nature of some of the details:

“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” she deadpans before a breezy laugh.

Moreover, this “feminist icon” peels with laughter throughout her disclosure that the crime lab accidentally destroyed DNA evidence that tied Taylor to the crime. Even more despicably, this hero of the left re-victimized the young girl through the legal process by attacking her credibility via an affidavit she wrote which stated:

“[T]he complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing.”

Even if true—which is highly doubtful—a 12-year old cannot legally give consent for sexual activity with a 41-year old adult. Therefore, the child's alleged “fantasizes” at that time are irrelevant. More sleazy Clintonian style evasion (“It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is”) to cast doubt on the veracity of an innocent by a person who has grave issues with truthfulness herself—to this very day.

Given all the mishaps, which were many—like the mishandling of the bloody underwear—Slick Willie's wife pulled a real fast one. She finagled a plea deal that reduced the charges from first-degree rape to unlawfully fondling of a minor younger than 14. That's not sexual assault—that's inappropriate touching. In other words, the result of the trial was nothing more than a legal slap on the wrist:

Roy Reed: “How did it turn out? What...”

Hillary Clinton: “Oh, he plea bargained! Got him off with time served in the county jail, he'd been in the county jail about two months.”

Considering the source, unsurprisingly, that last bit isn't quite true either. Per The Washington Free Beacon: “Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.” Yet, in the final analysis, so distasteful was her dishonorable accomplishment, she crowed proudly about it (above) to the press five years later!

By the victim's own admission, Mrs. Clinton put “me through hell.” More honest words of warning are rarely spoken. Is this really the caliber of person this country wants as the next U.S. president?

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Hillary's House of Lies

“It is not fair to blame Clinton for this particular high-handedness—she was not involved in this discussion [related to the use of her own private server]... [or] in creating this climate of [State Department] acquiescence.” - The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus

Right out of the gate, Hillary fallaciously claimed the server was Bill's. Let's recall reality, the facts Ms. Marcus is completely oblivious to. In September 2015, Mrs. Clinton then told NBC's Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”: “[The server] was already there. It had been there for years. It is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House.” Unfortunately for her, Mr. Clinton's habit of not using email had already been disclosed to the WSJ that previous March: “The former president, who does regularly use Twitter, has sent a grand total of two emails during his entire life, both as president, says Matt McKenna, his spokesman.” (It doesn't take a rocket scientist to logically infer that Bill Clinton probably doesn't like keeping physical records of his activities. Perhaps a understandable bias developed from his intern-chasing Monica Lewinsky blue dress days?) In any case, in this latest version of the big lie, Ms. Marcus contents herself not with blaming Bill, but faceless flunkies at the State Department.

Of all the confederacy of dunces at The Post, this columnist should read her own newspaper, specifically the Taking Exception editorial “What secrets are hidden in Ms. Clinton's emails?” by Michael Canes of McLean. He writes:

“The Post should probe the email issue much more deeply. And it needs to question whether Ms. Clinton, having abandoned her responsibilities with respect to email communication while secretary of state, is still a qualified presidential candidate. It may conclude that the alternatives are worse, but it shouldn’t turn a blind eye toward how badly Ms. Clinton has betrayed the public trust and how much more dangerous the email issue [stolen state secrets] may yet turn out to be.”

However, Ms. Marcus is doing the opposite—her darnedest to spin Hillary's leaden political prospects into fool's gold—that the electorate ain't buying. And that, certainly, is an errand of a colossal dupe. For the law in this matter is crystal clear: under Title 18, Section 1924, of federal law, it is a misdemeanor punishable by fines and imprisonment for any federal employee to knowingly remove classified information “without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location.” Contrast that unambiguous statute to the schizophrenic tone of Ms. Marcus's latest column. A missive so tortured, nonsensical and bereft of reason it would give the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland” pause. Specifically, her “journalism” is so yellow she is nothing more than a propagandist talking head for the Clinton campaign, reiterating the same bold-faced, threadbare lie that Mrs. Clinton's email server was set up to keep her personal emails private. This is the same tall tale Hillary's been spouting for over a year. Pick your Clintonian poison pill as explanation: her actions were approved by the State Department, other Secretaries of State had “done the same thing,” that she wanted the convenience of accessing all data on one device. Make no mistake, she's Frank Underwood (played by Kevin Spacey in “House of Cards”): a real-life F.U. in a skirt.

So the State Department's own inspector general's report of Mrs. Clinton's clearly forbidden and blatantly law-breaking activities isn't a smoking gun? If that's not unequivocal evidence of wrongdoing to the shockingly thick Ms. Marcus, what, if anything, is? She can't recognize truth or relevancy here with a GPS and a divining rod. Ms. Marcus quotes a trivial Hillary email, her “I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible,” as a spurious distraction from the patently indefensible. For Ruth Marcus, the Democratic front-runner has suddenly become Greta “I want to be [left] alone” Garbo. Speaking of “smoking guns,” did anyone put one to Hillary in her relentlessly single-minded pursuit of ever higher government posts? Like Mrs. Clinton's loony imitation of a small yelping dog, the political spotlight has been her personal chew toy for the last 25 years. Therefore, she knows very well that privacy is the cost of public life. (Let's all cry a river for Mrs. Clinton's “sacrifice.”) More common sense that utterly escapes Ms. Marcus's baseless scribbles.

Hillary, this rules-don't-apply-to-me queen bee, is imploding under the weight of her own Server-gate scandal. In this regard, Mrs. Clinton's actions—whether intentional or not—are beside the point. A now more and more likely national security breach by criminal hackers and/or foreign powers is deadly serious. Therefore, it's far more than simple “bad” judgment or a violation of protocol, it's treasonous.

Mrs. Clinton doesn't belong in the White House, she belongs in the big house. Thus is humpty dumpty tumbling from her most lofty perch: the Democrats' nomination for president. And just like the fairy tale, all the king's horses (read: Mr. Obama) and all the king's men (read: the sycophantic MSM's Marcuses of the world) can't put ol' cracked, crooked Hillary back together again.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog

http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

MSM's Scorn for GOP First Ladies

Does the press have unfair criticism of Republicans in their DNA? I refer not to U.S. presidents—who as leaders of the Free Word remain fair game—but the MSM's habitual “mean girl” treatment of their Republican spouses. Contrast that to the often blind, fawning praise lavished on their generally inferior Democratic counterparts.

The most blatant example of “journalistic” bias is the widespread nay-saying of recently departed Nancy Reagan. The fact remains that she was the central figure to a great president's personal happiness—and by any objective standard—she conducted herself with the commensurate grace of her husband as a positive symbol of American optimism to the world. What in death is trumpeted from the liberal media? The petty criticism of perhaps a cool interpersonal persona uniformly condemned by the powers-that-be with the same coded watchword: “frosty.” (Google it: this precise accusation reverberates stentorian in liberal publications across the globe like a 21^st century “telephone game.”) Whether this subjective interpretation holds some semblance of truth is ultimately not the point. Greatness is negated by a minuscule, all too human flaw by less fine examples of humanity: progressive ideologues attacking the historical reputation with the politically-motivated venom of the yellowest journalism.

Meanwhile, let us move across the aisle. Former first lady (and current Democratic presidential front-runner) Hillary Clinton, with the well known fact-based reputation as a “liar” is downplayed in the media or ignored as a phantom “right wing conspiracy.” For example, this kind of nonsense regularly comes from liberal columnists like The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus who wrote, “This may sound strange coming from someone who doesn't expect Hillary Clinton to be indicted [on influence-peddling and corruption] and doesn't think she should be...”. Ms. Marcus's knee-jerk fealty to the Democratic Party is more than “strange.” It's completely wrong, same as her “coverage” of Hillary. (In actuality, that's really “for” not “of.” ) Indeed, she's nothing more than a political true believer with a press pass. To any “real” journalist, the first duty is always to the public good—to demand accountability and justice before any other consideration.

Ms. Marcus is so conditioned by the moral equivalency of the tumultuous Obama years, she has become hysterically blind to the purpose and equalizing value of law. To her, even indisputable evidence of wrongdoing—perhaps even treasonous activity—is negated by Hillary's elitist powerbroker status. Irrationally, Ms. Marcus adds, “there has to be a way to provide more information, in a timely [before election day] way, from a credible source.” That's code for “not Republicans.” So, like her third estate compatriots, she wants Mr. Obama to spin yet another slow-roll tall tale to protect Mrs. Clinton presidential prospects, at least until after November 4^th anyway. As that's his go-to modus operandi for the numerous and monumental failures of his presidency, why would he do anything different now?

Speaking of the Obamas, let us shift to his “better half” first lady. Ah. pampered, coddled Michelle. She disregards the perks of travel on Air Force One and bulletproof limousines, the prime D.C. address and 24-hour Secret Service protection, the executive chef and small army of personal assistants. As a ceremonial model of American taxpayer largesse, she wore two floral designer frocks by designer Carolina Herrera valued at $6,680 or 23 times the average yearly salary of Cuba's working class or $288. But this little lady of excess and entitlement isn't satisfied. She wants to be paid for her time as first lady. And why shouldn't she gripe at not getting her government welfare check?

To the ho-hum MSM all of this is such a bore and a non-story. Why shouldn't Michelle complain if she wants? At least she look absolutely fabulous while doing so! Specifically, The New York Times praised Michelle Obama's fashion choices in Cuba: “When the important questions of the day—human rights, the future of the American trade embargo, Cuba’s future—were raised (if not settled), a frothier one came to the fore: Cuba was giving a party. What would Michelle Obama wear?” Compare this laudatory rather breezy (and blasé) tone to that same publication who hammered Nancy Reagan for sporting fashionable duds in 1981: “The gold crown is studded with costly jewels. The dress is of finest brocade. The cape is snowy ermine. But the majestic woman on what may be Washington's best-selling post card is not, on second glance, Queen Elizabeth II of Britain. It's Nancy Reagan.” Fashion is subjective, the media's complete lack of even-handedness is not. (What ever happened to journalism's core principle of objectivity?)

Pegging politics to fashion's shifting hemlines is nothing new. As the axiom goes: when skirts get longer Democrats lose. I, for one, hope fervently for a new and sudden Amish fashion craze. Joking aside, there is an underlying historical context to all of this that, once again, lays bare the discriminatory behavior of the media toward only the Republican first ladies. I coyly refer to '60s fresh faced fashion icon Jacqueline Kennedy versus outgoing first lady Mamie Eisenhower. Given that Jackie was young and gorgeous (same as her “Camelot” presidential husband), at 64 the outgoing Mamie Eisenhower never had a chance. I mean then in November 1960 or today 56 years later.

I refer to the tale spun by author Kate Andersen Brower: “Mamie’s husband was being replaced by a Democrat, and her own role was being assumed by a woman she sneeringly referred to as “the college girl.” Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy’s beauty, her modern touch, and her youthful, cutting-edge style would soon eclipse Mrs. Eisenhower’s frumpy shirtwaist dresses, pearl chokers and short bangs.” Notice the language choices. Mamie, the Republican, is cast in the worst light as “sneering” and “frumpy” while Democrat Jackie is inversely afforded the same pattern of maximal praise with terms like “modern” and “cutting-edge.”

Truthfully, only these two women—like Nancy, now silenced forever by death—knew how they really felt about each other or could authentically speak to the dynamics of their relationship. In tacit acknowledgment of this fact, in the print version (superimposed in the article's corresponding photograph): What were they thinking (intended to be provocative) floats beneath their feet. Therefore, in the final analysis, one tends to discount this Washington Post guest columnist with a book to hawk—more than half a century after these events transpired.

To be fair—something the liberal media clearly isn't, at least when it comes to the Republicans—I think Ms. Brower's description of JFK's wife is true to life. Yet, even if all of the positive qualities assigned to Jackie are accurate, the skin deep, always glowing narrative instantly afforded all Democrats isn't really the point, is it? When it comes to Republican first ladies, the propagandist MSM has a real political axe to grind. To misappropriate a fashion term, they have hate-tinged “darts” to throw.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://patriotpost.us/commentators/446
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Obama: 'A pen, a phone, a precedent' (Rationalizing an Imperialist American president)

As any informed grade school student could educate Ms. Marcus: Congress makes the laws, the President enforces the laws and the Court interprets the laws.  That, in a nutshell, is our governmental system.  Indeed, per the oath of office, the primary responsibility of the President is to “support and defend” the Constitution.  Not to perpetually rule by executive fiat (a.k.a. the pen and phone) cherry-picking the laws you like and disregarding or arbitrarily amending the laws you don’t agree with or are not politically convenient.  That is the purview of whimsical Kings and autocratic Dictators.  That, in practice, is “lawlessness” as any clear-thinking person knows.

Ms. Marcus' attempt to muddy the waters is feeble.  By suggesting that Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation—which freed the slaves and actually affirms the fundamental principle of the Constitution that “All men are created equal”— is the same thing as suspending certain deportations of non-US citizens (not “defending” the law) is profoundly Orwellian reasoning.  Likewise, that Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase (Is the State Department or diplomacy suddenly no longer a part of the executive branch?) and delaying, revising or rewriting—Ms. Marcus' words—Congressional edicts by the Obama Administration (a.k.a. “legislating” not “executing” the law) demonstrates willful ignorance and a dereliction of her journalistic duty.

Ms. Marcus is certainly doing her part to ensure that transparency and the rule of law are the touchstones of the Obama presidency.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976