The engine of the one under which she’s about to be thrown seems to be warming up.
The Dems are like jackals. When they see a weak member of the herd, they go in for the attack.
BTW, when you see them attack people like Trey Gowdy for a “partisan” attack, it’s almost always projection.
Secretary Clinton does not have a “bus” under which loyalists “get thrown” when it is expedient to repudiate what these friends/family/colleagues profess or believe. I don’t think that she sacrifices “her people” in that way, and perhaps that is a virtue that she maintains.
On the other hand, it appears from the “Sunday morning programs” that the Secretary retains (cough), what are they called, “button men”?
The “under the bus” was the place Mr. Obama’s maternal grandmother ended up when he needed to make an example of someone as a person of the white race who could have benefited from a conversation about race.
I really don’t think either of the Clinton’s do that sort of thing, that is, use a person in their personal sphere as a “bad example” of politically incorrect thinking. They really don’t.
On the other hand, if there is someone through the various degrees of separation who is expected to maintain omerta and blabs something critical of either of them, I don’t think that person ends up seeing the suspension linkages of a . . . bus. A think it is more like that they see the working parts of a boat . . . from below the waterline . . .
I thought Hillary would burn the Dem Party down last time after she was denied the nomination, I figure they must have made some tall promises to talk her down.
If she doesn’t get it this time, I suspect we shall find out how much her fury compares to that of Hell. At that point, she won’t have anything left to lose.
The Dems are like jackals. When they see a weak member of the herd, they go in for the attack
The Democrats don’t care about weakness; they care about conformity. Clinton could be running a meth lab from her home and the Democrats wouldn’t desert her.
Now if she were to say something like “Gay marriage was a mistake” or “Affirmative action hasn’t worked out” her fellow Democrats would turn on her in a heartbeat.
Conformity is the standard in day-to-day matters, but when it comes to keeping the White House blue, weakness is a mortal sin.
“I really don’t think either of the Clinton’s do that sort of thing, that is, use a person in their personal sphere as a “bad example” of politically incorrect thinking. They really don’t.”
Ah well then you must never have heard about the “nuts and sluts” technique.
The technique you speak of is exactly my point.
Kathleen Willey and the others were not allies whose political opinions were held up as being incorrect in the style of a Maoist purge.
Her offense was blabbing that the President took certain liberties, forcibly took certain liberties, and for that the “button men” took to the airwaves to have her reputation “sleep with the fishes.”
Don Corleone would never, ever go against any ally for any reason apart from talking too much to the wrong people about the workings of the Corleone family. Air the dirty linen, however, and whammo.
This is not at all “throwing someone under the bus.”
“Kathleen Willey and the others were not allies whose political opinions were held up as being incorrect in the style of a Maoist purge.”
But that isn’t wha tyou said. What you said was:
“I really don’t think either of the Clinton’s do that sort of thing, that is, use a person in their personal sphere as a “bad example” of politically incorrect thinking. They really don’t.”
“…in their personal sphere…..”
“bad example”
What amazes me is that either her or Bill thought for a minute that they wouldn’t be betrayed by the Obamanauts.
You’d think that they, among all people, would know there’s no honor among thieves.
A hard rule in politics is to “Do onto others as they would do unto you, just do it first.”
The whole premise of that article is that one guy said “I don’t know” — twice (original emphasis). That’s the whole premise for believing she’s about to be thrown under the bus? Doesn’t sound much like long knives being drawn to me.
I think the more important statement from the dude was this: I think there have been eight investigations. They have been done extremely well. And they — I think they have resolved most of the questions. Democrats think the Benghazi debate is over.
If so, he’s an idiot.
Why isn’t the State Department answering whether or not she signed the separation form or not, Dave?
One theory: They’re letting her twist in the wind.
Another: They haven’t figured out what to do with her perjury trap yet, and want to continue to think about it.
Either way, not “the most transparent administration in history.” Particularly in combination with their decision today to exempt themselves from FOIA.
Seriously, at what point will you start to feel like an ass for defending these criminals?
My theory is that the leak about the server was a warning shot across Hillary’s bow. They either have the paper in hand or know it wasn’t signed. If they have it in hand then Hillary is their tool and will do anything they say because: felony.
If they don’t have the paper in hand, it’s almost as powerful – they can state Hillary never signed it and that would sink the campaign. Or they could take it a step further and prosecute Hillary for NOT signing the paper.
This issue gives the criminals int he executive branch numerous and flexible options of immense power when it comes to Hillary.
And I don’t see what the Clinton-leone’s have that can match that.