by Karin MacQuillan
The Times followed the emerging scandal with article after article. They didn’t just want to embarrass Hillary, they were out to destroy her.
The burning question was from the start was: who put the Times up to it? It had to be someone with a lot of power.
We can believe Ed Klein’s sources claiming Valerie Jarrett is the White House point woman for the destruction of Hillary Clinton. Evidence:
It was the New York Times which broke the story. The Democratic press does not eat its own, ever. Yet here was the Gray Lady, setting the headlines for Drudge.
People asked how Hillary could have been so stupid. The answer is that in the normal course of mainstream reporting, there is no Democrat crime too large for the press to cover up. She knew she was perfectly safe. Bill Clinton raping women? That story had no legs. President Obama’s bizarre secrecy and lies about his past -- no interest. Obama’s radical record as a community organizer? President Obama attending a black supremacist church led by a Louis Farrakhan clone who hates whites and Jews? No story there, move along. Obama working day and night to promote the hegemony of Iran in the Middle East? Nothing to analyze. Hillary lying to our faces about Benghazi? The IRS abusing its power to hobble the Tea Party before the 2012 Presidential election? Not news worthy.
So it was perfectly normal for Sect. Hillary Clinton to break security rules and think she could get away with it.
Even if it came out, a blustering press conference, followed by every liberal journalist’s loyal disinterest and chorus accusing the Republicans of being on a witch hunt -- that everyone uses private emails -- and the story would be buried. That was her expectation.
The mystery is why -- for the first time in memory -- the liberal press was pushing a damaging Democrat scandal.
To make it even clearer that something was going on behind the scenes: the fact that Secretary of State Clinton was using private email had come out in the news two years ago. Raking up an old story detrimental to their team is not normally what the New York Times does.
The Times followed the emerging scandal with article after article. They didn’t just want to embarrass Hillary, they were out to destroy her.
The burning question was from the start was: who put the Times up to it? It had to be someone with a lot of power. Not one of Hillary’s weak contenders for the nomination, unless there was someone waiting in the wings who wanted to clear the field before moving. I wondered at the time about Jarrett, but dismissed the thought, as she likes to pull the strings out of public sight.
And then Ed Klein, at the New York Post, reported the Clinton camp believes it is Valerie Jarrett, at the behest of Obama, who is behind the leaks on Hillary Clinton’s misconduct at State, and has instigated no less than six different investigations into other possible wrongdoing.
Klein claims a source close to the Clinton’s told him:
Can
Klein’s sources in the Clinton’s inner circle be trusted? Naïve
question. Everything in the Klein column is information handed to him
by the Clinton camp, as their returning salvo.
A war is on for control of the Democratic Party after Obama leaves office.
Far too many conservatives have been bitterly and fearfully muttering “two more years.” This is folly. Obama is not going to disappear into obscurity in two years. In two years he will be the most powerful leftist in America. He will still have the ability to raise enormous sums of money (witness the Clintons) and funnel it to the destructive, radical causes he loves. His Alinsky tactics will be unfettered in destroying opponents, including Democrats not docile enough to his diktats. Obama’s presidency was only the beginning for the socialist, anti-colonialist, anti-white makeover of America.
The only Democrat politicians who could rival the power of the post-Presidential Barack/Michelle/Valerie Jarret triumvirate are the Clintons. A President Hillary would be more powerful than Obama. Obama has earned no Democrat friends in Congress. He only has the sincere loyalty of the Congressional Black Caucus and the progressive wing of the party.
Obama, Jarrett and their backers would rather have a Republican president in 2016 and a Democratic Party they dominate.
This is why I believe Klein that the White House wants to destroy Hillary’s candidacy for president.
It was the New York Times which broke the story. The Democratic press does not eat its own, ever. Yet here was the Gray Lady, setting the headlines for Drudge.
People asked how Hillary could have been so stupid. The answer is that in the normal course of mainstream reporting, there is no Democrat crime too large for the press to cover up. She knew she was perfectly safe. Bill Clinton raping women? That story had no legs. President Obama’s bizarre secrecy and lies about his past -- no interest. Obama’s radical record as a community organizer? President Obama attending a black supremacist church led by a Louis Farrakhan clone who hates whites and Jews? No story there, move along. Obama working day and night to promote the hegemony of Iran in the Middle East? Nothing to analyze. Hillary lying to our faces about Benghazi? The IRS abusing its power to hobble the Tea Party before the 2012 Presidential election? Not news worthy.
So it was perfectly normal for Sect. Hillary Clinton to break security rules and think she could get away with it.
Even if it came out, a blustering press conference, followed by every liberal journalist’s loyal disinterest and chorus accusing the Republicans of being on a witch hunt -- that everyone uses private emails -- and the story would be buried. That was her expectation.
The mystery is why -- for the first time in memory -- the liberal press was pushing a damaging Democrat scandal.
To make it even clearer that something was going on behind the scenes: the fact that Secretary of State Clinton was using private email had come out in the news two years ago. Raking up an old story detrimental to their team is not normally what the New York Times does.
The Times followed the emerging scandal with article after article. They didn’t just want to embarrass Hillary, they were out to destroy her.
The burning question was from the start was: who put the Times up to it? It had to be someone with a lot of power. Not one of Hillary’s weak contenders for the nomination, unless there was someone waiting in the wings who wanted to clear the field before moving. I wondered at the time about Jarrett, but dismissed the thought, as she likes to pull the strings out of public sight.
And then Ed Klein, at the New York Post, reported the Clinton camp believes it is Valerie Jarrett, at the behest of Obama, who is behind the leaks on Hillary Clinton’s misconduct at State, and has instigated no less than six different investigations into other possible wrongdoing.
Klein claims a source close to the Clinton’s told him:
…according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”
A war is on for control of the Democratic Party after Obama leaves office.
Far too many conservatives have been bitterly and fearfully muttering “two more years.” This is folly. Obama is not going to disappear into obscurity in two years. In two years he will be the most powerful leftist in America. He will still have the ability to raise enormous sums of money (witness the Clintons) and funnel it to the destructive, radical causes he loves. His Alinsky tactics will be unfettered in destroying opponents, including Democrats not docile enough to his diktats. Obama’s presidency was only the beginning for the socialist, anti-colonialist, anti-white makeover of America.
The only Democrat politicians who could rival the power of the post-Presidential Barack/Michelle/Valerie Jarret triumvirate are the Clintons. A President Hillary would be more powerful than Obama. Obama has earned no Democrat friends in Congress. He only has the sincere loyalty of the Congressional Black Caucus and the progressive wing of the party.
Obama, Jarrett and their backers would rather have a Republican president in 2016 and a Democratic Party they dominate.
This is why I believe Klein that the White House wants to destroy Hillary’s candidacy for president.
Karin MacQuillan
Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/of_course_obama_wants_to_take_hillary_down.html
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment