10.12.2016 0

Dear Hillary, what difference does it make if Russia was the source of WikiLeaks?

By Rick Manning

As originally published at http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/10/11/rick-manning-dear-hillary-what-difference-does-it-make-if-russia-was-the-source-of-wikileaks/

Apparently, everything is Vladimir Putin’s fault in Hillary’s alternative universe.

It makes one wonder what Hillary meant when she declared a reset in U.S.-Russian relations — something she bragged about in the second presidential debate — way back when she was Secretary of State. Now after her “reset,” she blames Vladimir Putin for every revelation that comes out from WikiLeaks about the inner workings of her campaign machine. Apparently, she has reset the Russians right back to the 1950s and 60’s. She is even going so far as to push our nation to the edge of war with Russia in Syria as she is urging that the U.S. impose a no-fly zone in the region that would bring U.S. airmen into direct combat action against Russian pilots to enforce it. Now, that’s a Back to the Future sequel that I can do without.

But at least the Clinton blame game theme is the same as it ever was, as she creates a tenuous discrediting argument against someone or something, like Putin and Wikileaks, as the source of the information shifting people’s attention, magician-like, away from the leak’s damaging content, and onto the purported leaker.  This way every revelation is tainted under suspicion of its origin rather than being evaluated on its own face value as to the damage it might have done to the country or more importantly to Hillary, to her political career.

It is almost silly in its application, if you want to make Democratic National Committee email leaks showing that the primary was being rigged by Debbie Wasserman Schultz on behalf of Hillary against Bernie Sanders go away? It is easy peasy, the media makes it invisible because of the claim that Putin leaked it and is trying to influence the U.S. presidential election, and suddenly Hillary doesn’t have to answer the question as to whether she legitimately won the nomination.

As the latest WikiLeaks has revealed that Hillary complained in a paid, behind closed doors speech to Wall Street executives that Russia was funding “fake environmental groups” to stop energy development, the purported Russian source of the leak makes any questions about these “fake environmental groups” suddenly off limits.

After all, everyone knows that former spymaster Vladimir Putin would foolishly out his covert operation in an attempt to embarrass Hillary rather than delete those emails before the leak. It seems that in Hillary’s world only one politician is smart enough to delete embarrassing and criminal emails.

Once whitewashed by the compliant media, Hillary will be able to avoid the obvious question about which enviro groups she believes are fake, and be asked to name all the environmental groups that have received Russian money to influence American energy policy. Of course it would also be good to know if any of these “Russian” funded groups were actively supporting her presidential campaign, because that would be real intervention by a foreign power into our electoral system. Unfortunately, that question is unlikely to be asked or answered as we will have already been urged to move on.

Hillary’s Benghazi whopper though may take the cake for her blame passing obfuscation game.  According to released emails between Hillary and her daughter, on the night of the attack while Americans were still battling for their lives, the Secretary of State asserted that Al Qaeda was behind that September 11 attack all the while pushing Susan Rice out the door to the media for the next week blaming the deaths of those four Americans on the reaction to a YouTube video that no one had ever seen. The YouTube blame landed the video producer in jail for about a year, and after years of stonewalling every investigation, Hillary famously exclaimed, “at this point, what difference does it make?”

And that in a nutshell is how Hillary deals with the daily swirl of crisis and corruption that surrounds her.  She blames someone or something else, fights tenaciously to keep her lie accepted by a friendly media, finally offers a tepid apology, and then ends by urging everyone to move on, as the issue has been dealt with already.

In fact, the far left advocacy group MoveOn.org was created using this model, as their name refers to the grassroots effort they pushed on Clinton’s behalf urging the nation to stop paying attention to Bill Clinton’s White House intern problem and the trail of abused women he left in his wake and focus on other things. And with the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil Clinton media, the simple distraction trick works like a charm.

The irony that Hillary is trying to get the public to dwell on a leaked video from one of her corporate sponsors, NBC, that puts her opponent in a bad light due to more than a decade old crude sexual comment, all the while hoping the public forgets about her past role in viciously attacking her husband’s sexual assault victims will be lost on the humorless left. A group that is so used to chanting “move on” in regards to Clinton corruption that they might get whiplash from this latest change in direction.

The moral of the story is, when Hillary is blaming someone, chances are she is hiding something else.  In the case of the latest Wikileaks disclosures, she is hiding it in plain sight.

The author is president of Americans for Limited Government

Copyright © 2008-2022 Americans for Limited Government