The Gaslighting of America (a title stolen from Jonah Goldberg)

[Viligant_Warrior]

All us older folk know the term "Gaslighting," right? It comes from a war-era movie, Gaslight, starring Charles Boyer (Bo -yah' for you youngsters) and Ingrid Bergman. Well, that appears to be what the Clinton's are doing to America.

In today's newsletter by Jonah Goldberg of National Review -- not yet available online but it will be by tonight or tomorrow (I get mine via email) -- Goldberg compares the Boyer character's secret plan to drive his wife insane to the slickness with which Clinton is obviously hoping to get to the White House without being muddied by her own corruption.

The other day Hillary Clinton repeated her insistence that she wants all of her e-mails released as soon as possible. “Nobody has a bigger interest in getting them released than I do.”

This is the Schrödinger’s cat of spin. It’s a lie until the time comes to take it out of the box as the truth. (If you don’t like this metaphor, just count your blessings I didn’t go with an extended Bruce Jenner riff instead.)

First, the dead cat of lies. If Hillary Clinton wanted these e-mails out ASAP, she would not have printed them out and delivered hard copies — some double-sided, some not, for extra inconvenience — to the State Department.

She would have handed over an easily searchable hard drive. Heck, she still has electronic versions of the e-mails. She could hand them over today if she wanted to expedite the process. But that’s not the plan.

(In case someone points this out, my guess is they’re prepared to reactivate Sandy Berger. He can swing by Chappaqua and steal the relevant device, prompting the question: “Is this a hard drive in my pocket or are you just happy to seize me?”)

Which brings me to the living-feline of veracity: She really does want these e-mails out. Why? Because the damning ones were already destroyed. This shouldn’t be so complicated, and yet I keep hearing useful idiots suggest that Hillary will be “exonerated” when the State Department finally releases the scrubbed e-mails. If you’ve destroyed incriminating evidence, releasing the non-incriminating evidence is a good thing. After all, there’s a little-known codicil to the doctrine of Occam’s razor: When a Clinton says, “There is no evidence I did X,” the most reasonable conclusion is that the evidence of X was “handled.”

Perhaps by Sandy Berger.

 

[dcontroversal]

Oh without a doubt she is a snake in the grass.....anyone who would vote for her needs to buy George Straight's ocean front property in Arizona!