Consider this: You live in a parallel universe where Hillary Clinton won the 2016 presidential election. Soon after her inauguration, at the recommendation of top national security advisers and several U.S. intelligence agencies, President Clinton urges her Attorney General (Loretta Lynch?) to open up an investigation into Donald Trump and his associates for alleged collusion with the Russian government.
It’s a thought-provoking anecdote, especially when coupled with the Democratic Party and mainstream media’s obsession with the whole Trump-Russia conspiracy.
Now flashback to our universe.
One would expect — after more than a year of investigations, hearings and intelligence leaks — that congressional investigators (or, at least, the media) would have discovered sufficient evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow.
But no. Instead, they continue to grasp at straws.
A recent Harvard-Harris poll shows that a majority of Americans are growing tired of the Russia investigation. Unfortunately, thanks to the appointment of a special counsel by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Russia conspiracy is mutating into what appears to be a never-ending “witch hunt” — to borrow one of President Trump’s favorite expressions.
Nevertheless, the question remains: would the Russia investigation be playing out differently if Hillary Clinton were president? That, of course, is the $64,000 dollar question.
In her upcoming campaign memoir titled What Happened, Clinton reportedly blames Russian interference — again — as one of the principal reasons for why she lost last year’s election. Despite receiving sharp criticism in the past for refusing to blame her own performance for her loss to Trump, Clinton’s newest book adds to the narrative that the 2016 election was somehow stolen from her. More importantly, readers are given a closer look into the extraordinary level of bitterness that Clinton still harbors toward her former rival, Donald Trump.
The dark side of Hillary Clinton was revealed years ago by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, co-authors of HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton. In their 2014 biography, Allen and Parnes reveal how in 2008, Clinton campaign aides compiled a list of all the people who had supported Hillary during the primary season, as well as those who did the opposite by endorsing Barack Obama over her. The book goes on to describe how Hillary’s camp measured degrees of betrayal, scoring members of Congress on a scale of 1 to 7 — those who were most loyal to her received a “1” and those who publicly rejected her were given a “7.”
“The spreadsheet was a necessity of modern political warfare,” the authors write. “It meant that when asks rolled in, she and Bill would have at their fingertips all the information needed to make a quick decision – including extenuating, mitigating and amplifying factors – so that friends could be rewarded and enemies punished.”
How perfectly Clintonian.
During a May 2014 appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, MSNBC host Alex Wagner suggested that the Clintons had created a type of “industrial complex” to keep tabs on their enemies.
“I think there’s been a lot of reporting about the lists they keep,” Wagner said. “And we are led to believe that there is this kind of Clinton Industrial Complex where names are kept, sins are recorded. Whether or not they are poring over those notes, you know, on a nightly basis would be very much up to the Clintons.”
The Clintons have long been accused of exacting revenge on their political rivals — from using the Internal Revenue Service to intimidate President Bill Clinton’s accusers to digging up compromising material on federal investigators to undermine the Whitewater probe.
Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne, author of the New York Times bestselling book Crisis of Character, shared his firsthand account of watching the Clintons use bullying tactics to intimidate their victims.
“I know all too well how the Clintons use intimidation – it was often soft intimidation, and other times not so soft – to get their way,” Byrne said in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News. “These tactics show their crisis of character.”
Think back to the second presidential debate on Oct. 9, 2016, and the moment when Donald Trump accused Hillary of having “tremendous hate in her heart.” Why would he say that about her? Probably because he had come to believe some of what was being said about his opponent.
With more than 20 years worth of accusations piled up against the Clintons, including pay-to-play, corruption and coercion, Donald Trump did what no other Republican candidate would have had the stomach to do — he got personal with Hillary.
For this reason alone, the Clintons likely moved Trump to a DEFCON-10 level on their list. Trump knew the dangers of getting too personal with Hillary Clinton, but he chose to run the risk anyway.
Furthermore, he knew that retaliation was imminent if he lost. Whether via an FBI investigation into Russian collusion, an adversarial IRS or a partisan mainstream media, Trump would have constantly been on the defensive against a Clinton administration.
And what if Trump were banned from Twitter? It doesn’t require much of an imagination to envision a world where the social media network removes @realDonaldTrump for violating its terms of services. Left-leaning news outlet Wired, which endorsed Hillary Clinton for president, tried to convince Twitter of doing just that by cataloging a list of times when, apparently, Trump has violated the site’s terms of services. If Trump weren’t president, Twitter would almost certainly bow to pressure from left-wing activists and remove his account.
The fact of the matter is that a vindictive President Hillary Clinton would have found a way to neutralize Trump — one way or another. And without the presidential bully pulpit or Twitter to defend himself, Trump would have been left extremely vulnerable to attacks.
In July, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tweeted out a congratulatory note to Americans who voted to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House, saying they “dodged a bullet.”
However, looking back, it’s more likely that Trump was the one who dodged the bullet.