When it comes to the Clintons, it’s not only about what happens, but how they react. The fact that Clinton has not given a press conference in 264 days is far more damaging than the seeming corruption itself.
If she didn’t do anything wrong, why won’t she defend herself?
5 comments:
She does not have a good defense, and she knows it.
She will wait a while, and when somebody finally gets a chance to ask her, she'll say, "That old story? We answered all of that long ago," and the media will print it, unquestioningly. When the alleged vast right-wing conspiracy (is it alt-right, now?) erupts, the media will portray them as the usual feverish h8ters.
This is one reason why I have become reconciled to voting for Donald Trump. I was really turned off by him during the early debates, and by his twitter war with Megyn Kelly. I really, really wanted one of those successful Republican governors, or Ben, or Carly, to be the candidate. None of those other people seemed to be able to learn enough from him about how to handle either the media or the DNC.
A second reason I like him better now is that I have followed one kerffluffel after another about the "outrageous" things he said, only to find out that he specifically did NOT say what they said he said. In the process, I learned that DJT's language is gentler and more reasonable, point for point, than Hillary, Obama, and many other Democrats, including John F'n Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their media surrogates.
Finally, I saw his first press conference, and the message was "The lights are on, and somebody's home."
I think we may actually get a decent president, if he wins.
Valerie
I hope you're right, if he wins.
As for me, I regard Clinton as positively worse by almost every measure. Trump is bad if he is because of what he's said, but she's bad because of what she's done.
If she didn’t do anything wrong, why won’t she defend herself?
Because in American jurisprudence, she doesn't have to: it's on the accuser to prove the case, not on the defendant to prove innocence--and the legitimacy of it extends far beyond the legal, even for the unsavory among us. Time demonstrates its corrupt Progressive-Democrat (I apologize for the redundancy) underpinnings with its question.
Laying out the proof is something that Republicans, Libertarians, and Green Partiers need to start doing. There's plenty of evidence to lay out and to keep on about.
Eric Hines
Well, it's on the accuser to prove the case if you can get to court. Otherwise, it's all hearsay in our tradition -- and she has the muscle to keep herself out of court.
Which is why I pointed out that the legitimacy of it extends far beyond the legal.
It's still necessary for Republicans, Libertarians, and Green Partiers to lay out the proof. It's never useful, even with a mythical honest press, to rely on them to do so.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment