Clearly, Ms. Hillary Clinton assumed that the rather enormous scandal engulfing her would blow over in a 24-48 hour news cycle, which is precisely why she dodged reporters while heading to her daughter’s (likely) “Foundation” funded apartment in elitist Manhattan.
However, as the news cycle has continued to reveal especially damning information about Ms. Clinton, it appears that she finally realized that continued silence is probably not the best approach.
Unfortunately for Ms. Clinton, she chose an even worse approach, which is to straight up lie.
“Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones. So, it’s a day that ends in Y,” Clinton sneered.
“Fake” scandal after multiple years of investigation? That’s an interesting take on “fake.”
Alas, Clinton continued down the path of the pot calling the kettle black, “the more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie.”
Right. Because Clinton is the bastion of honesty.
Her tech executives clearly aren’t, as Mr. Rodney Joffe, a clear Clinton operative, is apparently doubling down on his own deception, despite Durham’s years of investigation.
“Contrary to the allegations in [the special counsel’s] recent filing, Mr. Joffe is an apolitical internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S. Government who has never worked for a political party, and who legally provided access to DNS data obtained from a private client that separately was providing DNS services to the Executive Office of the President (EOP),” a Joffe spokesperson proclaimed.
“Apolitical,” huh? So apolitical he reported all his findings straight to Clinton.
“As a result of the hacks of EOP and [Democratic National Committee] servers in 2015 and 2016, respectively, there were serious and legitimate national security concerns about Russian attempts to infiltrate the 2016 election,” the spokesperson continued.
Amazing how such “serious” concerns arose as Clinton’s email controversy began spiraling out of control. If anything warranted being a “serious” concern, it would be that.
On top of that, Clinton’s continued machinations have also attracted the attention of esteemed publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial board had quite a few questions after Joffe’s spokesperson’s ill-timed statements.
The WSJ editorial board wrote a rather compelling editorial regarding these questions, and it is safe to say that the publication sounds vastly more logical than Clinton and Joffe put together.
The publication also includes vastly more substance than Clinton’s lazy tweet and Joffe’s nonsensical statement.
“The Russians were a legitimate 2016 electoral threat, but Mr. Joffe’s statement doesn’t explain how or why he cooperated with Clinton representatives,” the editorial board mused, “[though] if the contractor’s job was to monitor security threats to the U.S., then the responsibility was to report any suspicious activity to the government – immediately and in a classified manner.”
Exactly! Joffe shot himself in the foot by trying to claim he was doing “apolitical” work in the interest of national security. Hardly!
“But according to Mr. Durham’s filing, Mr. Joffe took his information to others – namely, lawyers for the Clinton campaign, who also brought in the oppo-research hit squad Fusion GPS. This partisan team spent months writing anti-Trump white papers full of unproven claims that they spread to the media,” the editorial board continued.
In other words, in all his supposed wisdom, Joffe apparently believed that the Clintons were better served by his so-called assistance than the entirety of the Department of Homeland Security.
“We doubt government contracts include: ‘In case of threats, first call Democrats,’” the editors added, which is a fairly hilarious remark.
Then again, since Democrats are the ones gunning for “Defund police,” they frankly should be called first to deal with the criminal mess they’ve created.
Ultimately, the WSJ board concluded that Joffe, and by extension Clinton, have brought about far more questions than answers, questions that both will optimally address in a public forum.
“Mr. Joffe’s statement raises more questions than it answers. Who in government provided the contract that gave him such access to White House records? Why did he cooperate with Clinton campaign operatives? How did he come to hire the same lawyer who worked for the Clinton campaign?” the editors question.
“Who” and “how” indeed.
Most people would already be pressured to talk a bit more than Ms. Clinton has to date, as dismissing a multi-year investigation on Twitter as a “fake scandal” is frankly something that should have already been “fact checked” by the dreadfully biased platform, but of course that will not occur.
Which is why Clinton harnessed the social media platform in the first place.
Nonetheless, given the fact that a supermajority of Democrats believe Clinton should be investigated, at least to a degree, perhaps she just may face a reckoning after all …
Author: Jane Jones
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
These content links are provided by Content.ad. Both Content.ad and the web site upon which the links are displayed may receive compensation when readers click on these links. Some of the content you are redirected to may be sponsored content. View our privacy policy here.
To learn how you can use Content.ad to drive visitors to your content or add this service to your site, please contact us at [email protected].
Family-Friendly Content
Website owners select the type of content that appears in our units. However, if you would like to ensure that Content.ad always displays family-friendly content on this device, regardless of what site you are on, check the option below. Learn More
