When asked about the foreign money scandal, Bill Clinton instinctively said, "I did not have sex with that country." WH Press Secretary Tweet
In my last piece about Hillary Clinton, I made the case that her legacy is more stained that Monica Lewinky's blue dress. In that post, I summarized all of the scandals associated with her tenure as a public figure going back to the Bill Clinton's first term as president. It's clear she and Bubba are carrying a lot of dirty baggage. That is now undeniable.
But what is now becoming increasingly inarguable is the lack of any content in her character. She's an empty pants suit. So empty, even some in the progressive media are starting to take notice. In fact, it's been the NY Times that's made some interesting revelations regarding the Clinton Foundation. In their piece this week, they report the Clinton Foundation donors sold one of the largest uranium mining companies in America to a Russian nuclear agency while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The NY Times goes further to allege that the Clinton Foundation did NOT disclose who many of those donors were. Since this report, the Clinton Foundation said they will amend their tax returns (Reuters).
Prior to the piece by the NY Times, Peter Schweizer will be publishing his book entitled, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story Of How And Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill And Hillary Rich."
While that news is like low-hanging fruit for critics of Hillary Clinton (like myself and other conservatives), this and more points to major flaws in her character. They point to an individual who has a long history of secrecy. Recall her initial push for her failed HillaryCare initiatives in the early 1990's was all done behind closed doors. We now know she lies like a rug. Her claims that she came under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia to something as mundane as even how she got her first name (claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who climbed Mt. Everest five years AFTER she was born) and other lies point to an individual who has some serious behavioral and ethical issues.
And just this week, her ludicrous intention to "topple" the top 1% coming from someone whose been part of the 1% for decades. As John Podhoretz put so well: "She has spent 15 years as a voice of liberal corporations, not Occupy Wall Street." He added, "So whom exactly is Hillary Clinton going to lead the revolution against? Herself?"
Even when she chants "income inequality," she can't be trusted. During her tenure as U.S. Senator (NY), she paid the women in her office 72 cents to each dollar paid to men. (Washington Free Beacon). Add to this, her email ruse and her total lack of any accomplishments during her tenure in government, any reasonable person can only come to one conclusion: Hillary Clinton is an empty pants suit.
Postscript: Since this was posted, FBI Director Comey accused Clinton of being reckless with her e-mails and private server. In addition, there have been more revelations about the Clinton Foundation (pay to play).
In my last piece about Hillary Clinton, I made the case that her legacy is more stained that Monica Lewinky's blue dress. In that post, I summarized all of the scandals associated with her tenure as a public figure going back to the Bill Clinton's first term as president. It's clear she and Bubba are carrying a lot of dirty baggage. That is now undeniable.
But what is now becoming increasingly inarguable is the lack of any content in her character. She's an empty pants suit. So empty, even some in the progressive media are starting to take notice. In fact, it's been the NY Times that's made some interesting revelations regarding the Clinton Foundation. In their piece this week, they report the Clinton Foundation donors sold one of the largest uranium mining companies in America to a Russian nuclear agency while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The NY Times goes further to allege that the Clinton Foundation did NOT disclose who many of those donors were. Since this report, the Clinton Foundation said they will amend their tax returns (Reuters).
Prior to the piece by the NY Times, Peter Schweizer will be publishing his book entitled, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story Of How And Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill And Hillary Rich."
While that news is like low-hanging fruit for critics of Hillary Clinton (like myself and other conservatives), this and more points to major flaws in her character. They point to an individual who has a long history of secrecy. Recall her initial push for her failed HillaryCare initiatives in the early 1990's was all done behind closed doors. We now know she lies like a rug. Her claims that she came under sniper fire when visiting Bosnia to something as mundane as even how she got her first name (claiming she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who climbed Mt. Everest five years AFTER she was born) and other lies point to an individual who has some serious behavioral and ethical issues.
And just this week, her ludicrous intention to "topple" the top 1% coming from someone whose been part of the 1% for decades. As John Podhoretz put so well: "She has spent 15 years as a voice of liberal corporations, not Occupy Wall Street." He added, "So whom exactly is Hillary Clinton going to lead the revolution against? Herself?"
Even when she chants "income inequality," she can't be trusted. During her tenure as U.S. Senator (NY), she paid the women in her office 72 cents to each dollar paid to men. (Washington Free Beacon). Add to this, her email ruse and her total lack of any accomplishments during her tenure in government, any reasonable person can only come to one conclusion: Hillary Clinton is an empty pants suit.
Postscript: Since this was posted, FBI Director Comey accused Clinton of being reckless with her e-mails and private server. In addition, there have been more revelations about the Clinton Foundation (pay to play).
