The Obligation to Hammer Hillary

hill in slammer IIHere’s a bit of free advice for all you aspiring young hucksters: if you’re planning a spot of embezzlement and believe, given the arrogance of youth, that you’ve got your cover story down pat and your backside covered, then you probably need a bit of extra insurance? So here’s the good oil: try to arrange things so that you have the assistance, possibly unknowingly, of a future Prime Minister, preferably a female one. Then, if the muck does hit the fan, the Establishment will be reluctant to pursue you lest your possibly unwitting female accomplice is ensnared.

Sure, police investigations will be launched, but they will go nowhere and fade into obscurity. You, the aspiring pillager of, say, union funds need to have created just enough doubt by virtue of your prominent female associate to see a career-minded walloper think long and hard about digging, really digging and sifting. Mr Plod will be asking himself if an assiduous probe might have a blowback effect on a braid-encrusted future prospects. Chances are your savvy policeman, given his political eye, will think it easier, and far less risky, to leak a few spurious and improbable allegations against, say, a prominent conservative cleric. As for you, young grifter, lock your prominent female associate into your web of deceit by throwing a few bob her way for, I don’t know, house renovations say.

And don’t panic if the Opposition leader goes gunning for your partner in Parliament. That’s just politics and part of the game. They do it to each other all the time, but they’re really members of the same club and, when it comes to the crunch, they have each other’s backs. Overwhelming evidence might come to light and you might even be tempted to cut a deal and rat her out.  Resist that impulse!.  Trust me, it will never come to court. It would never do for a former PM, particularly a female one, to do time in the slammer. That would put the whole political class in a bad light!

Don’t believe me? Let me give you a real life example: Hilary Clinton. She must be one of the most compromised US presidential candidates ever – the subject of two ongoing FBI investigations — and so flawed that Donald Trump proclaimed during the election campaign that, were he in charge of the US Justice Department, Hilary would be in jail.

Now that he is poised to take charge of the Oval Office and assembling his team we see a far more conciliatory Trump. According to the Wall Street Journal “he is rethinking his call to have a prosecutor investigate Hilary Clinton saying, ‘I don’t want to hurt them. They’re good people.’ ”

True, Mrs Clinton was never president but she was First Lady, a senator and secretary of state, so that definitely puts her in thick with the in-crowd.

All of which leads me to this passing observation: the biggest danger in a Trump presidency is not that he will do what he promised to do. Rather, the danger is that that he won’t. Should he go easy on his bested rival we’ll know that he has morphed into part of the Establishment he railed against just a week or so ago.

27 thoughts on “The Obligation to Hammer Hillary

  • prsmith14@gmail.com says:

    Take your point but don’t buy it. Trump has bigger fish to fry. Part of being successful at that will be to avoid the distraction of elongated legal processes about whether Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted. That goes for the Republican Congress too. Hopefully, Obama will do Republicans a favour by issuing a blanket pardon for any and all of Hillary’s wrongdoing. That would serve the dual purpose of effectively conceding guilt while getting her and her husband out of the (distracting) limelight at last.

    • colinstent says:

      Justice needs to be seen to be done as well as being carried out. I hope the AG and justice department will methodically look at the evidence of the “crimes” of HRC and apply due process of the law. The last thing Trump needs to do is look like a persecutor and turn her into a martyr. He has heaps more important things for him to personally get involved in.
      If there is a “case” for prosecution, then leave it to the correct powers-to-be and let Trump appear conciliatory, at least for the time being.

      Having said that, the HRC case must be dealt with in due course. My guess is that there are way more crimes in that pot than Obama could pre-pardon, anyway. As far as Gillard is concerned, that case is well overdue for action but given the swamp we have in Australia, nothing will ever arise from that case.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Trumpenstein Pussygrabber has probably also sussed that prosecuting Clinton could open a can of worms after can of worms. And who knows where it might lead? It could turn into one of the greatest political court cases of all time: bigger than Dreyfus.
      He might even finish up having to present his tax returns to the court, or even (choke! caaargh! splutter! hawk! spit!*) start paying taxes himself!!!!!

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Put her in jail.

    • Jody says:

      I’m for anything which keeps her out of the spotlight; jail will not! She’ll just turn into another St. Joan for the feministas.

    • ian.macdougall says:

      Better to put the Trumporamus in jail for self-confessed sexual predation and income tax evasion. Oh, and no doubt the odd parking fine or two (hundred) for his gold-plated limousine. And for borrowing money with no intention of repaying it. (I think. They call that fraud.)

  • pgang says:

    It would be nice to see but is it a president’s job to go after criminals?

  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    ” … they are good people.” What?! Might as well rehabilitation Al Capone and the Boston Strangler while we are at it. “good people” indeed. Only the Bonnie and Clyde of the elitocracy. They both richly deserve being locked up! – Please Donald, don’t break our heats!

  • Rob Brighton says:

    As much as I would like to see Clinton in the big house, I will settle for her not being in the white house. Although it might be somewhat appropriate to see if the IRS would care to have a good hard look at the slush fund..oh I mean foundation.
    Even that would only signal that Trump is as low as Obama and co.

  • Warty says:

    I must say, I’m just a trifle worried about some of the early backflips. I simply couldn’t believe my ears when he said “I don’t want to hurt them . . . they’re good people”. My toe they’re good people. Anyone who has had any dealings with the devil (George Soros) comes away with a coating of dragon’s slime. Apparently it smells remarkably like the proverbial bottom of the swamp.
    If you listen to Kelly Ann Conway speak, and she is pretty impressive, one feels reassured that all is on track, the same with Newt Gingrich, but some of Trump’s most recent comments worry the hell out of me.
    Hope to God I’m wrong.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Trump would like to stop the anti-Trump demonstrations and since Obama is not helping then it would be unwise of Trump to repeat hard truths about Hillary at this stage. Give him credit, trump is one smart cookie whose every brazen step to the white house is now seen as part of a brilliant strategy.

  • Dallas Beaufort says:

    Given the FBI may not complete their investigations till after Donald J. Trump’s inauguration and the need for greater change to shift the lefts mindset away from nanny state, good to better examples need to be set to lead the herd now shifting ahead of the soft left mush.

  • a.crooks@internode.on.net says:

    Im not sure you can shout “drain the swamp” … and then back off from it. Perhaps the timing is everything? Perhaps after the electoral college has finished voting?

  • Bruce MacKinnon says:

    Is he waiting for Obamas departure? The President has the power of pardoning crimes in the US. If he starts the process of prosecution, that will likely trigger a tribal pardon. On the other hand, the President cannot pardon crimes committed under State legislation. That is the way to nail the Clintons.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Except that this all fits into a pattern, and IMHO the link below is worth following:

    “Trump’s behavior perfectly fits the profile of an ordinary wife abuser — but with one additional twist… Trump has not confined his controlling tactics to his own home(s). For seven years, he practiced such tactics openly for all the world to see on The Apprentice, his very own reality show, and now applies them on a national stage, commanding constant attention while alternately insulting, cajoling, demeaning, embracing, patronizing, and verbally beating up anyone… who stands in the way of his coronation.”

    In this fashion, he humiliated his male Republican primary opponents, demeaning them with nicknames — Little Marco, Lyin’ Ted, Low-Energy Jeb — and denigrated his only female primary opponent, Carly Fiorina, by unfavorably appraising her appearance. (“Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?”) More recently, of course, he’s disparaged “Crooked Hillary” in a similar fashion. (“Such a nasty woman!”)


  • Salome says:

    Perhaps the most he has to do is not interfere with the prosecuting authorities as they do the job they’d be doing anyway.

    • ianl says:

      That might work, since he will replace both the Attorney-General and the FBI Chief. With these roadblocks gone, Trump need do nothing more in this area, avoiding the political perception of Hillary being martyred.

      Still, I don’t believe it.

      • Peter OBrien says:

        My point is not that Trump should aggressively pursue Clinton but that he should make it clear that the Justice Department and the FBI should feel free to pursue their enquiries ‘without fear or favour’. Making statements that they ‘are good people’ only days after his election and before he has even assumed office makes a mockery of his ‘drain the swamp’ rhetoric and sends the completely wrong signal to law enforcement agencies. And it puts in doubt his other pre-election rhetoric, notably the pledge to put and end to the CAGW scam.
        And it continues to surprise and disappoint me that I am the lone voice on this website that still wants to see Gillard called to account. The rest of you seem to think that getting rid of her politically was achievement enough. Well, I don’t think that. I think we should be better than that. And until we are, we can expect to see more of the same ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

  • ian.macdougall says:

    Here’s what Obama told his daughters after the American voters in their wisdom gave Trump a majority in the Electoral College, but not in the popular vote.

    “Societies and cultures are really complicated. … This is not mathematics; this is biology and chemistry. These are living organisms, and it’s messy. And your job as a citizen and as a decent human being is to constantly affirm and lift up and fight for treating people with kindness and respect and understanding.

    “And you should anticipate that at any given moment there’s going to be flare-ups of bigotry that you may have to confront, or may be inside you and you have to vanquish. And it doesn’t stop. … You don’t get into a fetal position about it. You don’t start worrying about apocalypse. You say, O.K., where are the places where I can push to keep it moving forward.”


    • rh@rharrison.com says:

      Here’s some more of the wit and wisdom of President Obama:

      “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. Period.” – Obama’s promise for Obamacare. Needless to say, his promise was false. Also on Obamacare: “The reforms we seek would bring greater competition, choice, savings and inefficiencies to our health care system.” – Well, he got one right anyway.

      “Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.” – Fortunately for us all, Guantanamo is still functioning as a prison for terrorists eight years after this promise.

      “… companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” – That future funded by more than half a billion dollars of loan guarantees from the US Government. And then it went bankrupt.

      “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.” – Because we all know why the US flag has 58 stars on it.

      “You didn’t build that.” – Obama’s denial of the possibility of individual initiative and enterprise actually achieving anything.

      “I am not in favor of concealed weapons.” Obama is, of course, surrounded by Secret Service agents who as we all know go around unarmed.

Leave a Reply