Friday

May 26th, 2017

Insight

Democrats, Have You No Shame?

Bruce Bialosky

By Bruce Bialosky

Published July 11, 2016

A Congressman was recently at my house for a fundraiser.  An audience question directed him toward the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, and whether the Congressman would be supporting him.  The questioner brought up some statements he found distasteful by Trump.  After the Congressman answered the question and we wrapped up the program, I approached the Congressman and asked if he thought any of his colleagues who are Democrats were being queried on their support for Hillary Clinton.  The answer is no, because Democrats have no shame.

George Will has decided to abandon the party of which he was a member for 52 years.  Though I don’t agree with his rationale, he took a stand because he disagrees with the stances of the Republican nominee.  Though he may disagree with Trump on more than a few issues, he disagrees with Clinton on virtually every issue.  But it isn’t just issues as much with Clinton as it is her moral standing.  Do you see any Democrats leaving their party over their soon-to-be nominee?  No, because Democrats have no shame. 

Ms. Clinton met the parents of the Benghazi dead on the tarmac.  She lied to the faces of those parents, telling them that the cause of the slaughter of their children was an internet video by an obscure individual.  She did that despite telling her own daughter the night before it was an organized terrorist attack.  But President Obama and her team developed a storyline two months before an election.  Clinton carried it out.  No Democrat called her on it.  No one called out Susan Rice for perpetuating that obvious lie on Sunday morning.  She received a promotion.  Where are the Democrats protesting the sleazy handling of the death of four Americans and the inept management of the terrorist attack?  Democrats, have you no shame?

Hillary Clinton set up her own email operation separate of the State Dept. and against government policy.  No one she worked with ever questioned her use of a private email address for critical government information, much of which was top secret.  The use of this email address did not come to light until a Congressional committee finally received long-withheld documents two years after she left office.  Clinton dumped emails and has been caught in lies about what was in the emails, whether she transferred all relevant emails, and the security of those emails.  In fact, her private server caused the State Dept. to shut down their own security procedures because they could not interface with Clinton’s bathroom server. 

No Democrat stood up and questioned her abhorrent behavior.  No one called her out.  In fact, her principal opponent in the Democratic primaries told the world we were “Sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”  Then more lies and revelations came out.  But no one called Clinton out whether she was risking national security or not.  Democrats, have you no shame?

Clinton and her husband set-up a foundation.  While she was Secretary of State the foundation took in millions of dollars from questionable foreign governments who wanted to curry favor with the Secretary of State.  Clinton’s husband went out and made speeches for which he was paid fees in amounts that some Americans will not earn in their lifetime. In fact, his fees were raised during the period of time she became Secretary of State.  Many of the speeches for which he was ridiculously compensated were for operations that wanted to curry favor with the Secretary of State.  Once Clinton’s term was up, she went out and gave about 60 speeches at insanely high fees -- not to mention the laundry list of expensive conditions like designated private planes and special hotel rooms.  Has no one told these people that the appearance of impropriety is the same as impropriety? Or how about this:  it stinks like a three-day-old fish.

Yet no Democrats called her out for this clearly dubious behavior.  Commentator David Gergen after a recent Trump speech bringing her morals into question stated that no quid pro quo has been proven.  That is the way it always is with the Clintons – do something that stinks to high-heaven, looks tawdry, lowers the body politic, and then say “well there are no crimes here.”  Democrats, have you no shame?

Attorney General Loretta Lynch during the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton meets with her husband Bill Clinton.  I was taught on day one of working for CPA firm that the appearance of a conflict of interest is the same as a conflict of interest.  Yet our attorney general held the meeting anyway.  Analysts laughed about how someone could tell a past-president no, especially Bill Clinton.  It is easy tell your staff “What is he, crazy?  Tell him I cannot be in the same room with him -- I should not even be in the same zip code.  Under no condition is he allowed on this plane.”   When the hidden meeting became public, all people with a modicum of decency questioned what she did.  Where were the Democrats? 

The Wall Street Journal trumpeted bipartisan criticism.  But the only criticism I could find by a Democrat (and was quoted by the WSJ) was from former Obama advisor, David Axelrod.  His “strong” condemnation of the meeting amounted to stating “But foolish to create such optics.”  

Ms. Lynch in the aftermath of the meeting stated she was not changing her behavior and that she was always going to accept the recommendation of the FBI on charges against Clinton.  Additionally, Clinton brazenly compounds the matter by stating she may keep Lynch on as Attorney General once Clinton captures the presidency.

Lynch should have stepped aside from the case instead of saying it was painful for her.  Instead she said she “fully expected to the accept the recommendations.”   What does that mean? That has the same value as when I would say I fully expect to eat this carton of ice cream and not put on any weight.

Why would she do such a thing when her boss, Barack Obama, endorsed the person under criminal investigation?  Because the former “law professor” does not seem to understand that the appearance of conflict of interest is the same as conflict of interest.   He flies Clinton on Air Force One to campaign with her.  Democrats, have you no shame?

FBI Director James Comey tells the world Clinton lied about her server. Ding.  He tells the world she lied about her smartphones.  Ding, Ding.  She lied about turning over all her work emails.  Ding, Ding, Ding.  She lied about sending classified emails. Ding, Ding, Ding Ding.  She lied about knowing she was not hacked.  Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.  She lied about whether emails not marked classified should have been considered as such.  Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.

But as the alarm bells were ringing a deafening sound and the sirens were roaring, did one Democrat stand up and say I have had enough of her lies and her reckless behavior?  NO.  Democrats, have you no shame?

When the Democrats meet for their national convention, they are about to nominate a woman characterized in 1996 by William Safire of the New York Times as a Congenital Liar.  This woman has been swirling in controversy for the past two decades.  She was judged by the head of the FBI for being extremely careless which was a tortured attempt to not use the legal definition – gross negligence.  She has pocketed millions from major corporations and foreign governments and denied any conflict of interest. 

Will there be any protests about her?  Will there be any Democrats stating they cannot be there because of her?  Will anyone question any of the actions of Clinton?

For a couple months Democrats have asked me what am I doing about Trump.  They don’t even blink at the irony of that question.  I ask them what are you going to do about Hillary.

Democrats, have you no shame?

Comment by clicking here.

Bruce Bialosky is the founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California and a former Presidential appointee.

Columnists

Toons

Lifestyles