Hillary Clinton’s absolutely reveling in her defeat. She’s like a cockroach that’s somehow still scurrying around after being stepped on. I have to give her credit; she’s much more determined than I imagined. She’s 69. I really thought she would have retired and stopped embarrassing herself by now.
But nope. She’s still bleating about 2016. Her “woe is me” tour is picking up steam. She’s now identified over three dozen factors that supposedly contributed her loss. Don’t expect honesty from her at this point, however. The committed liar is still up to her old tricks.
According to Hillary’s delusions, there are tons of reasons why she lost but none of them have anything to do with herself or her husband. Remember Bill’s extremely suspicious meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch? The pair met “randomly” at an airport while Lynch was supposedly in the middle of investigating Hillary’s crimes.
Hillary insists that the much-maligned meeting wasn’t a contributing factor in her defeat.
“I honestly reject that premise, partly because there’s a chain of command in the Justice Department,” she told journalist Judy Woodruff.
“There’s a deputy attorney general. We all now know who it was, Sally Yates, a woman of experience and integrity. We knew at the time, after it was reported that, you know, both my husband and Loretta Lynch said they didn’t say a word about this. The optics were not good. I admit that.”
Well, that’s something. Robot Hillary rarely admits to bad optics. Or bad anything. She’s perfectly willing to trash anyone she’s not related to, however.
“I just don’t — Judy, I don’t believe that… I mean, he (former FBI Director James Comey) was in a position that was subordinate to the chain of command in the Justice Department. So, Loretta Lynch recuses. It’s like when Sessions recused… But in this chain of command, if the attorney general is recused, you know, the deputy attorney general. And what we know happened is that the investigation was getting nowhere. There was nothing to find. And he was in a position of having to accept the evidence that there was no case.”
Does anyone still believe her lies?
(Source: Daily Mail)