Hillary Clinton’s defeat: from Russia with love
WASHINGTON, December 13, 2016 — Last October, New York Times columnist Charles Blow worried that the next person to take the presidential oath of office would “be viewed by many as the country’s most invalid president, hanging under the specter of suspicion, mistrust and illegitimacy.”
No, he wasn’t talking about Donald Trump but the person he and his “newspaper of record” presumed would be the 45th president of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Her “illegitimacy” centered on hacked emails that proved Democratic National Committee officials, in the words of Bernie Sanders, “rigged” their party’s primary system in Clinton’s favor.
“We have won, at this point, 45 percent of pledged delegates, but we have only earned 7 percent of super delegates,” Sanders told supporters two months before the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
A trouncing far greater than Clinton’s in the Electoral College, which has triggered many tears and tantrums.
Seven months later, Mr. Blow’s newspaper worries Russia was behind emails released by computer hackers of Democratic Party corruption and that of Clinton while Secretary of State. In essence, they blame the dirty truth for costing the Democratic Party’s rigged candidate the presidency.
According to the Times, when an FBI investigator warned the DNC’s tech-support contractor that hackers had breached the computers servers at party headquarters, he “wasn’t certain the caller was a real FBI agent and not an imposer.”
His hesitation is understandable. After East European hacker “Guccifer” revealed Hillary Clinton illegally stored top secret government emails on an unsecured home computer server, the FBI launched a lengthy criminal investigation that dogged her throughout the 2016 campaign.
But the FBI did not open a probe into possible illegal wrongdoing by high-level Democratic Party election riggers, because such rigging is not against the law.
“Political parties are, legally, private entities with the right to police [wink, wink] their nomination process internally,” writes William Murphy, professor of American history at the State University of New York at Oswego.
“Neither the federal government nor the state governments can interfere… the Supreme Court ruled back in the 1970s that party rules take precedence over state laws in determining the nominations… What the DNC did was unseemly. It was ugly. It was dirty pool,” wrote Murphy on the website Quora.
When the FBI decided against recommending the Justice Department indict Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of secret government information last July, Donald Trump said, “Folks – the system is rigged. The normal punishment, in this case, would include losing authority to handle classified information, and that too disqualifies Hillary Clinton from being president.”
Trump added that the ballot box provided the perfect venue in which to convene the court of public opinion. “The final jury will be the American people, and they will issue the verdict on her corruption, incompetence, and bad judgment on November 8th,” said Trump.
If it is true that Russian hackers did what America’s mainstream media refused to – report the “ugly” truth concerning a corrupt Democratic Party’s electoral “dirty pool” and Hillary Clinton’s corruption – we owe the Russian Bear a debt of gratitude.
You might say Hillary Clinton’s defeat was a gift – from Russia with love.