Andrea Widburg writes for the American Thinker about the latest bad idea from a former Democratic leader.
Hillary Clinton does not have a reputation for honesty. Indeed, ever since she burst onto the political scene, the one guarantee with Hillary was that you couldn’t trust her. Whole articles have been published about the whoppers she’s told over the decades. … One thing, though, that’s always seemed to be true is her claim to have graduated from Yale Law School. After hearing her latest pronouncement, though, I must admit to having my doubts about that statement, too.
One of the things that’s pretty clear in the United States Constitution, which has traditionally been part of the curriculum at American law schools—or at least, that was still the case in the early 1970s—is that it guarantees free speech. …
… I can freely contend that prominent members of the Democrat party conspired with foreign nations—say, England—to perpetrate a hoax on the American people to the effect that a presidential candidate conspired with Russia to game the election.
It would be a dirty lie, and provably so, but I wouldn’t be sent to jail, unless I violated the law in other respects (e.g., abusing government access to secrets, setting up illegal servers in my bathroom to feed information to geopolitical enemies, etc.). That’s because the idea—that a presidential candidate is unfit to serve because he conspired with Russia—is protected political speech, no matter how foul and untrue it is. It’s propaganda and, in the rough and tumble world of American politics, it’s rebuttable, but not actionable.
But that’s not how Hillary Clinton operates. As always with Democrats, sauce for the goose isn’t sauce for the gander.
If they protest, no matter how violent that “mostly peaceful” protest may be, it’s righteous speech and assembly, with everyone walking free. If conservatives protest, and some (possibly encouraged by Democrat activists) get violent, it’s an insurrection, and the largest dragnet in American history gets launched.
