As the presidential candidate who’s “willing to debate anytime and anywhere,” and is willing to speak with any investigator about her private email troubles, Hillary Clinton seems to be saying “No” a lot lately.
Saying “No” to a Party of No Guts primary debate with opponent Bernie Sanders in California makes sense on the surface — I mean, what drug-free quarterback runs double reverses when their team is up?
It’s all about taking a knee until November, baby. Even Party of No Brains nominee Donald Trump feels the same way about debating Sanders — (laughing) sort of. Perhaps I’ll explore that in another post.
The one problem with Clinton’s “prevent” offense is the probability that she’ll appear as a political punk.
Conversely, debating Sanders opens up the not-so-trivial probability that the hungry Senator from Vermont could run up some points and actually win, or aim a stronger spotlight on Clinton’s unelectable flaws — not to mention he could actually win the upcoming California primary, which at minimum makes Clinton’s case for President look raggedy.
So, Clinton appears damned to say either “No” or “Yes.”
An arguably more interesting case than Clinton’s “Bernie, please” strategy concerns not only the candidate’s ongoing legal problems with her bastardized email protocols while she ran the US State Department — and how the same department put Clinton’s unique email practices on blast through an embarrassing report — but also the revelation that Clinton said “No” to the idea of meeting with the agency’s inspector general to answer questions during the investigation.
And that last sentence prompts the need to bring up Guccifer — the largely-unknown gentleman from Romania who hacked into Clinton adviser Syd Blumenthal’s AOL email account to expose this issue in the first place.
After his extradition to the US for hacking about 100 other Americans and pleading guilty to those charges, there’s ongoing speculation that Guccifer could cooperate with the FBI in its investigation of Clinton’s emails.
Oh, and he admitted earlier this month to hacking Hillary Clinton’s private email server with ease.
This could mean any previous requests pertaining to this investigation that were met with a Hillary “No” could be irrelevant …
It’s abundantly clear by now that Clinton broke a law.
The only major question left to answer is whether or not the scope of the prosecution will solely focus on Clinton’s use of an renegade email server, if you know what I mean …
song currently stuck in my head: “marshall” – remy kay
mentalunrest.com 