As the Russia collusion probe drags on with no evidence to point to the Trump 2016 campaign working with the Kremlin to tilt a presidential election, the capital is awash with overhype, overreactions, and lust for impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. The reason: he beat Hillary Clinton. It’s the biggest case of sour grapes in recent memory. It also shows that when American liberals lose, it can be incredibly entertaining. News flash: in American, where free and fair elections are held, often times your side loses. Get over it. But since there’s a special counsel, Robert Mueller, digging through the Trump world, let’s not forget that maybe this whole episode in American politics could be one of the best.
Both sides hate each other, there’s a sense of anger, but also clarity, at least for me; we know who the enemy is and their party’s symbol is a jacka…—sorry, it’s a donkey. Some say that Hillary and Trump being the two contenders for the White House shows how low we’ve gone in politics. I suggest it’s what it’s always been, an overly sanctified and idealistic venture whose craft is selling voters that you’re not going to sell them down river, which is exactly what happens. It’s a snake pit.
Clinton and Trump also share the special counsel/independent counsel (though the latter is a bit different) chapter in their public lives, though with everyone writing books as of late, Ken Starr, the former special prosecutor who looked into the Clintons, said he was thisclose to charging Hillary Clinton with perjury during the Whitewater investigation. To make a long story short, it was a probe into some shady real estate dealings the power couple had executed in the late 1970s. Starr describes Hillary’s testimony as mendacious:
Former independent counsel Ken Starr was so frustrated with Hillary Clinton’s answers during the 1990s Whitewater probe that he considered charging her with perjury, the prosecutor reveals in a new tell-all.
The then-first lady repeatedly said she “did not recall” during questioning about the suicide of White House adviser Vince Foster, Starr wrote.
“I was upset over Mrs. Clinton’s performance, and was even considering bringing the matter before the Washington grand jury for possible indictment on perjury,” Starr writes in “Contempt: A Memoir of the Clinton Investigation,” which hits bookshelves Tuesday.
[…]
“In the space of three hours, she claimed, by our count, over a hundred times that she ‘did not recall’ or ‘did not remember,’ ” Starr recounted of a Jan. 22, 1995, deposition of the future secretary of state.
“This suggested outright mendacity. To be sure, human memory is notoriously fallible, but her strained performance struck us as preposterous.”
So, you could see how the “crooked Hillary” slogan stuck. In the end, Starr said that there was not enough evidence to charge her beyond a reasonable doubt.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member