Sunday, October 9, 2016

The Clintons, more thoughts.

I am seeing New Agey sorts of emotional gurus defending Hillary against Trump, despite her record of abusing women.  It is not necessary to consider Trump some sort of saint--he obviously isn't, and has never claimed to be--in order to condemn Hillary's very sociopathic and violent defenses of Bill over the years.

Is there really any difference between, on the one hand, attacking a 12 year old girl with the claim she was  ASKING to be put in a coma for 5 days and rendered unable to have children, and telling Juanita Broaddrick that, "look me in the eye bitch: we appreciate ALL you do for us.  Do you hear me, you fucking cunt: keep your fucking mouth shut, or it's over for you and your business.", which is what Broaddrick plainly heard.  And it worked.  She kept her mouth shut for over 20 years, and was upset and angry when she got dragged against her will into the spotlight in the Paula Jones case.

No.  There is no difference.  And I would point out that in the case of Bill Cosby he too was a man with a lot of influence and connections.  It took a long time for the flocks of women to start appearing and testifying. And the situations were much more ambiguous: they were administered drugs and woke up hazy and unsure exactly what had happened.  Clinton raped at least Broaddrick, but there is no reason at all to assume that was the only case.  There are likely a dozen or more women watching the news in fear, terrified that if they come forward and Hillary wins, they will face retribution.  Remember: Broaddrick testified only when she had no other choice.

Look at Kathleen Willey.  I posted within the past week or two not just her account of threats of violence, her tires being slashed, pets disappearing, but an account of Christopher Hitchens speaking on the topic after having lunch with the guy who runs the dirty tricks campaigns for the Clinton's, Sidney Blumenthal., who convinced him with his tone and words that Willey was speaking the literal truth.

Who else has faced threats of violence?

And we need to remember the Clinton body count as well.  Snopes says, well, you take any public figure and there are bound to be some unexplained deaths.  Really.  Try it with Trump.  They won't be able to do it.  Has he had multiple business partners kill themselves prior to cases involving him?

I don't have time to look at all the cases, but let's take the case of Mary Mahoney, from this list, which is alphabetical:  She and her two colleagues were gunned down "execution style".  They found a fall guy, but she had bullets in her from two different guns. One guy does not use two different guns.  She was shot five times: "Mary was shot in the chest, her face, and in the back of the head."

That is vastly more than needed to stop someone.  Neighbors heard nothing, which implies silencers were used.  She had been an intern in the White House, and prosecutors had said someone with the first initial of M was about to testify.  The convicted shooter has recanted his confession, which he says was obtained under coercion.

Then you add the killing of Eric Butera, who was a drug user who said he had overheard people talking about the Starbucks slaying.  He was sent to the house, a crack house, to buy cocaine so the police could execute a search warrant, but he was ambushed and beaten to death by parties unknown.  Who knew he was coming?  Why didn't they send an actual undercover cop?  The abuse was so blatant, it resulted in a million dollar settlement to his mother.

Snopes, to be clear, does not come CLOSE to resolving the red flags in this case.

And obviously in cases where the person died, no resolution is possible.  One example is Suzanne Coleman, who reportedly died of a gunshot to the back of her head, and who was seven months pregnant.  No autopsy--much less investigation--was done.  Snopes accurately states that no connection could be found between Clinton and her other than that he was her law professor.  But we know Bill is a sex addict, and that professors are often targets of female attention, and that at that stage of his career having a child out of wedlock in Arkansas would have been an enormous political liability.

At root, we have to ask a simple question: based on the histories of Bill and Hillary, is there any evidence of the sort of caring and compassionate personas that would make politically motivated assassinations impossible?  We know Hillary laughed about gaming the system in her rape trial.  We know she laughed about the brutal murder of Gaddafi.  We know NOW that she caused that war as a result of a personal vendetta.

As far as Bill, watch this testimony, and tell me this is a standup guy:

Trumps problem is that he always says what's on his mind.  It is a liability when he speaks too much truth.  But what he has NEVER been accused of is being dishonest.  He brags and boasts, and yes he embroiders the way most of the best sales people do, but he does not tell calculated lies the way the Clintons blatantly do.

No comments: