In last night’s debates, the questions Hillary refused to answer gives you more insight into a Hillary presidency than the ones she answered. Usually in debates there is one question that candidates don’t want to reveal their true thoughts on but three means you are hiding a lot. The three questions concerned Supreme Court picks, immigration and the Clinton Foundation.
The question on the Supreme Court was a simple one. Do you want judges who uphold the constitution or do you believe it’s a living breathing document? (I once suggested to my wife that our wedding certificate was a living breathing document that needs to take current conditions into account. I swear I never saw that frying pan coming.)
“What’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders’ words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances?”
“I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United, we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace, that we stand up and basically say: The Supreme Court should represent all of us.”
No mention of the constitution. Imagine nine Sotomayors sitting on SCOTUS.
The second question was to explain the pay for play going on in the State Department.
“I’m thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation because it is a world renowned charity and I am so proud of the work that it does. You know I could talk for the rest of the debate.”
Clinton made the claim that 90% of all money coming into the Foundation goes to charity. She was off by only 77%.
The third question was over the Wikileaks release of her paid speeches, where she told foreign bankers that she dreamed of this country without borders.
“Is that your dream, open borders?” Wallace asked?
“Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy, You know, we trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. I think that would be a great benefit to us.”
She then started ragging on Putin and Russia for hacking democratic computers.
Here are the facts. For decades democrats have refused to allow free trade on fossil fuels, so we are to believe she was talking energy and not immigration? It’s not hard to guess why she told these bankers she wanted open borders. Their citizens come here to work, taking jobs away from Americans and then they send money home that props up that country’s economy.
And for the next comment, I refer you to Donald Trump: