Over the past almost eight years the Obama administration has been famous for its linguistic gymnastics. From their rephrasing of the term “war” into “man-made disaster” and “overseas contingency operation” to “workplace violence” instead of “terrorist attack” they have attempted to soften harsh reality.
But the top phrase that has been applied to actual riveting concern is that “There is no there there.” That phrase has recently been co-opted by Hillary Clinton when it comes to her emails and Clinton Foundation scandals.
Unfortunately for Hillary, who has been quoted as saying, “There may be a lot of smoke but there is no fire”, some pretty extensive flames have been revealed by a respected journalistic source, the AP. Following years of stonewalling by the State Department, the AP finally won a court decision to have Hillary’s schedule of non-work-related appointments released. While the schedule so far only covers the first two years of her position at State, they have revealed that more than half her meetings were held with Clinton Foundation donors. Many of these donor meetings were set up by a series of communications between foundation members and top Hillary State Department advisors.
Chief among the facilitators was Uma Abedin, who held a trio of simultaneous positons that included full-time employment by State, a paycheck from the foundation and further compensation from a Public Relations firm.
With half her appointment schedule released, Hillary now faces what could be more devastating information on her activities as the founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has promised to release a raft of new Clinton emails prior to the November election. This will either come as an “October surprise” or sometime earlier.
The current phrase now being used by Donald Trump in his attacks on Hillary is, “Pay for Play”. By donating in straight cash contributions to the Cliinton Foundation or by paying obscene amounts of money to Bill Clinton for a half-hour speech, donors were given favorable treatment of their requests.
Going back in time, when FBI Director Comey appeared before Congress, the most effective thing he did was to present the Republicans with an extremely flawed Democratic candidate. If he had pushed for an indictment, which was indicated by the lengthy description he gave of Hillary’s missteps and lies, he would have probably succeeded in getting her off the Democratic ticket. In that case, he might have been overruled by the Attorney General, but he would have succeeded in bringing forward a much more likeable nominee in the person of Vice President Joe Biden.
As to Comey’s appearance before Congress, his demeanor and body language seemed to indicate that he felt very uncomfortable. It was as if he wanted to say something that he had been warned not to. Again, language manipulation came into play when he used the word “careless” in regard to Hillary’s conduct. Oddly enough, it was the same word that President Obama had used months before when asked about Hillary’s email transgressions. Comey’s conclusion that he did not believe “intent” by Hillary could be proven is the most baffling statement he delivered. According to Webster, intent is having the mind bent on an object, to be eager in pursuit, firmly resolved, preoccupied, absorbed and purposeful.