For the Democrats, a presidential candidate has to represent the worst of America, embody the furthest thing from traditional American values and possess a parasitic and exploitative nature. Their self-serving irresponsibility and extreme dishonesty, as well as an extreme hatred for our constitutional republic as it was originally constructed cannot be in doubt. In order to be chosen to represent that Marxist, end America as we know it organization, one must be, to put it simply and succinctly, a low-life scum bag. Nobody represents those “ideals†more wholly than Hillary Clinton.
As the criminal Clintons are insulated from the an awareness by the sleeping, distracted American people by the puppy dog media, Clinton’s criminal actions are being ignored and any attempts to investigate immediately dismissed as politically motivated and unjustified.
Putting aside the obvious and indisputable mountain of evidence that Clinton committed treason by selling favors as Secretary of State and has engaged in conflicts of interest, criminal obstruction of justice, espionage, perjury and a host of other crimes related to her “public self-service,†wouldn’t just being historically bad with money be grounds enough to dismiss one as a viable presidential candidate? Clinton wants us to vote for her based upon her indoor plumbing, but women are generally fairly good at budgeting and at least knowing where they money goes even if it is being spent irresponsibly.
Hillary Clinton lost the unfathomable amount of $6 billion during her four years at the State Department. How does one do that? Even the most ignorant of drool-soaked, red diaper sporting Democrats couldn’t just “lose†that kind of money, nobody can. But you can skim it or guide it into situations where it can be laundered and then brought back home to mamma.
This aspect of the Clinton document dump by design which has not, for the resulting lack of evidence and the associated obstruction been pursued, was addressed by Judicial Watch a year and a half ago. Looking back we see evidence of a media cover-up, with virtually nothing having come of their revelations. The silence speaks for itself.
At a minimum she should be made to answer by the voters. At a minimum, her friends in the moderator panel at the next debate should have a couple of questions regarding both her criminality and her fitness to lead, given the obvious improprieties. Here’s what Judicial Watch had to say in April of 2014:
In a mind-boggling example of how the government blows—or perhaps steals—our tax dollars, billions vanished from the U.S. State Department mostly while Hillary Clinton ran it, according to a new alert issued by the agency’s inspector general.
Could the former Secretary of State be using the cash to fund an upcoming presidential campaign? In all, $6 billion are missing and it’s highly unlikely any of the money will ever be recovered. The cash was supposed to be used to pay contractors but it just disappeared and documents that could help track the dough cannot be located. How convenient! The paper trail, which federal law says must be maintained in the case of government contracts, has been destroyed or was never created to begin with.
How could this possibly happen? Like a lot of government agencies, outside contracts are a free-for-all at the State Department with virtually no oversight. Hundreds of millions of dollars are doled out annually for a variety of services and no one bothers to follow up on the deals. This “exposes the department to significant financial risk,†according to the State Department Inspector General, which issued a special management alert this month outlining the lost $6 billion. The watchdog further writes that “it creates conditions conducive to fraud, as corrupt individuals may attempt to conceal evidence of illicit behavior by omitting key documents from the contract file.â€
Among the examples listed in the memo is a recent investigation of the closeout process for contracts involving the U.S. mission in Iraq. Investigators could not locate 33 of the 115 contract files totaling approximately $2.1 billion. Even of the files they found, more than half contained insufficient documents required by federal law. In one billion-dollar deal involving the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement in Afghanistan, the actual contract was determined to be “incomplete.â€
In one alarming case a contract file conveniently omitted that a $52 million deal was awarded to a company owned by the spouse of another State Department contractor employee performing as a specialist. In other cited cases a contracting officer actually falsified government technical review information in a $100 million deal and a contracting officer’s representative allowed nearly $800,000 to be paid on a deal with no official documents to support the payment. It’s the free-flow of public funds under extremely suspicious circumstances.
At the very least the State Department is violating its own policy, according to the inspector general, which divulges that it’s found “repeated examples of poor contract file administration over the years.†The watchdog confirms that “it is the Department’s policy that all contracts, regardless of dollar value, be properly documented so as to provide complete record of: pre-solicitation activities; the solicitation, evaluation, and award process; and [sic] the administration of the contract through closeout.â€
This unbelievable report documenting the mysterious disappearance of $6 billion from the coffers of a major government agency brings to mind a similar and equally enraging story reported by Judicial Watch a few years ago. The Pentagon somehow lost $6.6 billion sent to Iraq for post-invasion “reconstruction.â€
Just as the Inspector General so insightfully noted, key documents have disappeared, are not available and will likely never be. Clearly that was at least a partial motivation for establishing the separate email system that Clinton operated, something that the IG was, like the rest of us, unaware of at the time of his investigation.
So as the corrupt media battles over who can make Donald Trump look like a “clown†or berates Ted Cruz for his efforts to “shut down the government,†in fighting against bloated government abuse of the citizens, they might want to take a half hour or so out of the next Democrat debate to focus on fiscal responsibility. They might consider how for most Americans, dishonesty and corruption are much more important issues in determining our leaders than their gender or race.
That would require them to put away their bias and do their jobs as watchdogs rather than lapdogs, as our guardians rather than sleeping night watchmen, as a free press rather than an entertainment media and as the fourth estate rather than occupants of a guest house on the Obama plantation.
Ask the questions – it’s incredibly difficult to earn $6 billion dollars, few ever achieve it. Even fewer, perhaps a handful, in the course of history have managed to “lose†it. Hillary Clinton is one of those rare individuals.
