Hillary Rodham Clinton, former First Lady, former U.S. Senator, former Secretary of State, still wannabe ruler of our nation, continues to show her need to be in the spotlight. Her latest foray came via Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. Long story short, according to HRC, if you spread disinformation (and, reading between the lines, especially if you aren’t fully in lockstep with the DNC), you should be charged and jailed. Bad think must be punished. Otherwise, how do we stop our young people from growing up to think for themselves and not bow down to their rightful overlords?

Okay, that’s a bit of an overstatement. Here’s the quote in question:

It’s important to indict the Russians, just as [Robert] Mueller indicted a lot of Russians who were engaged in direct election interference and boosting Trump back in 2016,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“But I also think there are Americans who are engaged in this kind of propaganda, and whether they should be civilly, or even in some cases criminally, charged is something that would be a better deterrence, because the Russians are unlikely, except in a very few cases, to ever stand trial in the United States.”

The editorial board for the Wall Street Journal makes an interesting observation, one HRC will never address, much less answer:

Note that Mrs. Clinton is worried about speech she thinks helps Donald Trump. But would her speech standard also apply to the 51 former U.S. intelligence officials who claimed in 2020 that the Hunter Biden laptop story had “all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation”? They were spreading disinformation because the laptop and its contents were real and had belonged to Hunter.

Why shouldn’t they be held to the same standard as the Russians spreading disinformation or those Americans who spread it, whether or not they know the information is false?

Clinton went on to say, “We need to uncover all of the connections. You can vote however you want, but we are not going to let adversaries — whether it is Russia, China, Iran or anybody else — basically try to influence Americans as to how we should vote in picking our leaders.”

That’s an interesting way of putting it. She doesn’t want our “adversaries” influencing our votes, but apparently it is more than all right for non-adversaries to engage in disinformation in order to influence the vote. If so, that means the DNC, the political action committees, donors and just about anyone else who are “friends” can do and say whatever they want to influence the election without fear of consequences. Of course, how easy would it be for them to then claim the other side in the election is the “adversary” and use the system to silence them. If that doesn’t give you pause, it should.

Or maybe she’s subconsiously crying out to be held accountable for the actions of her own campaign and other supporters  in 2016 with regard to the Steele dossier.

Jonathan Turley noted, “Not only did U.S. intelligence believe that the Clinton campaign was used to make the debunked claims, but it was clearly done for purely political purposes.” That makes it pretty clear her own campaign spread disinformation designed to influence the election. Using her own reasoning, doesn’t that mean they should be held to the same standard she preached to Maddow? Should they not face civil, possbily even criminal, consequences?

Naw, not in her world.

Of course, this is the same HRC who also “forcefully” said that Kamala Harris doesn’t have to clarify or explain her policy positions. She went on to say Harris faced a “double standard” from both the voters and the media. According to the Queen of Disinformation, Harris shouldn’t be asked these questions because she all that information up on her website. If the voters want to know what she stands for, we can go there and read her policy page. How dare we ask her any questions. How dare we want to hear her own words and not read words written by some political hack hired to make her so-called policies sound reasonable.

And, because she is still butthurt after her 2016 loss, she just has to bring sex and race into it.

. . .they’re still grappling with the idea like, ‘Oh, am I really going to vote for a woman to be president and commander in chief?’”

Disinformation, misdirection, and tap dancing around the issues. HRC at her finest. Instead of telling the voters we need to hunt down information we want to help us decide whether or not to vote for Harris, why isn’t she asking Harris why she hasn’t held a single press conference since Biden dropped out of the race and she became the Dem’s candidate? What is she hiding?

And why is anyone in the media still giving HRC airtime? The American voters spoke loud and clear in 2016 about how they felt about her. The DNC pretty much did the same when it didn’t come to her on bended knee when Biden bowed out of the this year’s race. Still, by giving her a platform, it lets more and more in our country see just how little she cares for the foundations that this country is built upon. Every time she opens her mouth, she attacks yet another fundamental right. Will this be the final straw and even the media will realize she has little of value to say?

Probably not, but one can hope.

Featured image: Hillary Clinton caricature. Created by Donkeyhotey, Creative Commons license 2.0