Share This Article with a Friend!

The Vast Conspiracies To Take Out Hillary Clinton

Back in 1995 a Democratic political operative posited that there was a “vast right-wing conspiracy” at work in American politics.

Hillary Clinton apparently picked-up on the idea at some point and on January 27, 1998, she appeared on Hillary ClintonNBC's The Today Show, in an interview with Matt Lauer.

Matt Lauer: "You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here."

Hillary Clinton: "Well, I don't know if I've been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this—they have popped up in other settings. This is—the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president."

Needless to say, as the facts of Bill Clinton’s lying and philandering came to light, it wasn’t some vast right-wing conspiracy that brought the President to the brink of impeachment, it was his own appetites and lack of self-discipline.

But the notion that there were vast conspiracies at work to stymie the Clintons in their quest for money and power became ingrained in Hillary Clinton’s mind as the primary reason for any defeat.

So, it should surprise no one that a new “vast” conspiracy surfaced this week as part of Hillary Clinton’s narrative as to why she lost the 2016 election to Donald Trump.

During an interview at Recode's Code Conference, Clinton argued that the Russians "could not have known how best to weaponize" damaging information about her campaign and fake news stories perpetrated on social media unless they had been "guided" by Americans.

According to NPR’s Jessica Taylor, Clinton said her campaign's assertions that there was Russian meddling had been "basically shooed away."

" 'There she goes, "vast right-wing conspiracy," ' now it's a vast Russian conspiracy," she said. "It turned out we were right, and we saw evidence of it."

Going forward, Clinton said, “I think it’s fair to ask, how did that actually influence the campaign, and how did they know what messages to deliver? Who told them? Who were they coordinating with, and colluding with?”

The problem for Clinton’s narrative that a vast Russian conspiracy defeated her is that no one has produced any evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign to further the alleged conspiracy.

Indeed, the only “evidence” of Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is a report paid for by the DNC and complied by a Russian.

The FBI was never given access to the Democratic National Committee servers for the purposes of investigating the alleged hack, all they have is what the DNC and the Russian told them.

Nor has there been any evidence presented that Russians gained access to any vote data to change the outcome of the election, so the claim that the Russian “hacked the election” is at best a misnomer and more likely a lie carefully crafted by Clinton and the Democrats.

And it is a lie that Rush Limbaugh blew-up quite conclusively during yesterday’s show:

RUSH: …Andy McCarthy made a brilliant point on the tube last night. Grab audio sound bite number 17. He was on with Eric Bolling on the Fox News Specialists and Eric Bolling said, “Andy, you’re a friend of Rush Limbaugh,” it makes you a great guy. He didn’t say that. I just threw that in. He said, “You’re a prosecutor. Is there any ‘there’ there?”

MCCARTHY: There’s no “there” there as far as the collusion conspiracy is concerned, but I think the thing that happened this weekend that’s really important that people miss because they’re so giddy about this story about Kushner, is it blew up the collusion conspiracy. Because if there had actually been a collusion conspiracy, there would already be back channels to Russia. There’d be no reason for Kushner in December, weeks after the election, to need to set up a back channel to Russia had there been one during the campaign. So I know for the moment they’re loving the story. But I think it’s kind of exploded the story that they’ve been telling us for six months.

RUSH: And that is exactly right. If Jared Kushner had to set up a back channel with the Russians, then what were they using to collude with the Russians when the collusion was going on during the campaign? Why would Kushner have to set up another back channel if they already had one? If the back channel they had was so effective that nobody could find any evidence of it, that would have meant it was a hellaciously great back channel because everybody and their uncle in Washington has been looking for evidence of collusion between Trump, the campaign, and the Russians.

And they haven’t found diddly-squat because there isn’t diddly-squat. And all the three or four people they thought were gonna have dynamite information are now kind of flittering away, Carter Page, Manafort, Flynn. So they drudge up Kushner as a last-ditch effort here, close to Trump, son-in-law, all of that. And the left, if you put a bag of manure in front of them, they’ll eventually step in it. And, in this case, they may have, because as Andy points out, why would you try to set up a back channel in December if you already had one that’s so good nobody can find it?

Now, it’s a shame that we have to use logic like this to make the point, but whatever it takes is necessary. All of this is so ridiculous.

Rush is right – if Hillary Clinton was defeated by a vast Russian conspiracy, it’s a conspiracy so good that no one can find it.

Share this