What Gun Are They Smoking?




By Phil Erwin

“Is there a Smoking Gun?” mused the talking heads. “Where’s the Smoking Gun?” they prodded. “But there is no Smoking Gun!” they proclaimed with thinly-masked glee.

Thus the news-program anchors and lapdog-compliant reporters intoned in virtual unison as they worked to generate the impression they were already experts on the entire contents of Peter Schweizer’s newest book, Clinton Cash. Problem is, they hadn’t even read it yet! It hadn’t even been released! An advance copy or two had found their way to the likes of the New York Times, but most of the media mouthpieces were just parroting what they had heard parroted elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the talking heads assailed Schweizer in their pre-release interviews:   “Do you have any direct evidence?” they challenged. “Is there a Smoking Gun?” they demanded. “But… you don’t have a Smoking Gun!” they trumpeted from the heights.

What are they, all closet NRA affiliates? Seems like these people are all gun crazy. Guns don’t even smoke much anymore – what’s with this silly media obsession?

Of course, Schweizer didn’t write the book to convict the Clintons for their (clearly shabby, and possibly illegal) use of the public’s confidences to enrich their own lives, lifestyles and bank accounts. Conviction is what “evidence” and “proof” (that ephemeral “smoking gun”) are for. Schweizer, as he freely pointed out in all the interviews, is not a lawyer; not an officer of the courts. He is a journalist. He writes books. Well-respected books. Best-selling books about politics, politicians and the political process. He does not seek to “prove” his points in the legal sense, as his interviewers all decried. He ”proves” his points in the literary sense. That is, he makes sense of things. He illuminates matters of interest; he reveals connections, he suggests possible conclusions. Whether those in the legal system do their due diligence and follow up appropriately on his revelations is not his responsibility.

But it seems that many (most?) in the news media today are obsessed with asking rhetorical questions – you know, the kind of question that suggests its own embedded, prejudicial answer rather than eliciting a real one. But that’s not the job of the news media. They are supposed to be asking real questions, and seeking real answers – as Schweizer does.

And the basic thrust of Clinton Cash raises a supremely real, and valid, question – one of serious import to all Americans, and especially, to those who will vote in 2016: What does available information tell us about whether Hillary Clinton can, and should, be trusted with the public’s confidences?

This is the fundamental question that makes Schweizer’s book so relevant. And it is the reason the vast majority of the “Lamestream Media” were so infuriated over his having written it.

How dare this mere book-monger question the integrity of their own, media-anointed, American Czar and Czarina?!? Who is he to question their choice to be the First Woman President?!?

You can practically hear their teeth grinding. It’s too bad they don’t use some of that energy to actually seek Truth.

Here are some very real questions that the Lamestreamers should have been asking, and so far have failed to do:

  • Why are there so many questions about the Clinton money connections? Why did Peter Schweizer have enough material to fill an entire book about it? And…
  • Why are there so few real answers? Why is it the only “response” to Schweizer’s questions seems to be “But there’s no Smoking Gun!”
  • If the Justice Department felt compelled to investigate Senator Menendez for “gifts” and “donations” of maybe a million or so; if they thought both ex-Virginia Governor McDonnell and his wife should go to prison for “bribes” amounting to roughly   $150,000 – mere chicken-feed in the Clintonian world; then why don’t hundreds of millions in donations to the Clinton Foundation rate at least a little legal curiosity?
  • If Mrs. Clinton had already turned over “all” her relevant “work product” e-mails to the government, and all that was left on her rogue e-mail server were her “personal” e-mails, then: Why was it necessary to completely “wipe clean” all the remaining information on the server?



America Rising: https://www.americarisingpac.org/

Just what was it that Hillary felt she had to hide?

Could it be that she worried that her server might be subpoenaed to determine just how much information she had failed to turn over to the government?   Or that the true nature of those “donations” might perhaps become a bit more evident?

Really, now: If all that was left on that server were conversations about Chelsea’s wedding arrangements and Bill’s – well, his exploits – do you think she would have felt compelled to hit “DELETE ALL”?

There is simply no reasonable way to look at that action, other than this: Hillary Clinton knew there was damning information on her server, and knew she had to get rid of it in order to mount a successful campaign to be President.

Now… Just what does that tell you about her trustworthiness? (Yes, that is a rhetorical question, and I’m not going to answer it for you. You should do that for yourself.)

“I want to be your Champion!” Mrs. Clinton exhorts the Nation’s 99%-ers. Sure. That’s why she worried about making the mortgage payments on two mansions. “Dead broke,” indeed.

“We’ve got to get big money out of politics!” she exhorts her supporters. That is, the ones who follow her around with microphones, cameras, press badges and no common sense. If they had any common sense, they’d be asking her, “If you want to get money out of politics, then why let your Foundation accept donations in the hundreds of millions from people, corporations and governments who had business before State while you were the Secretary? Why didn’t you remove yourself, and your family, from that Foundation in order to prevent the appearance of impropriety?”

“I’ve been fighting all my life for women’s rights!” she insists. Umm-hmm. And that’s why she paid her female staffers only 70% of what she paid their male counterparts. If “Equal Pay” is such a watchword for her, why does she settle for $200,000 per speech when her husband gets up to $500,000? Shouldn’t she have been insisting she get paid at least as much as he? After all, when it comes to speechifying, the fundamental task at hand is talking – something with which women are clearly as experienced and adept as are men. So why does she settle for a mere 40% of Bill’s take?


“We’ve got to get big money out of politics!”

The hypocrisy fairly drips from the persona Hillary presents at her carefully-choreographed “public” appearances: The Cheshire-like cheeks framing a pasted-on smile; the bobble-heading at acolytes chosen from the ranks of local Democrats – some of whom are undoubtedly naive enough to believe that her incessant nodding actually means she is listening to them. That she cares what they have to say.

Then there’s the lawyer-like recitation of lawyer-approved verbiage as she “responded” to questions about her e-mail server without looking anyone, including the American people, in the eye. (At least Bill had the chutzpah to look straight at the camera and wag a lecturing finger at us as he lied through his teeth – “I did not have sex with that woman…”)

After watching Hillary’s (very few) “public” appearances in recent months, one might begin to wonder whether there’s an actual, authentic human being in those pantsuits. Whether she even remembers how to be real.

But despite the Clintonian subterfuge, the hiding from the public, the dodging of questions, the obfuscating lawyerese when “answers” are finally flushed out of her – despite the general sense that Hillary is as inauthentic an entity as has ever sought public office – there is one thing of which we can be confident, when it comes to a Madame President Hillary. One thing we know will not change, no matter how the economy might implode, no matter the explosion of violence at home, no matter the vicissitudes of world politics, no matter how dark the nation’s future may become. At least there’s one thing we can trust: That Hillary will always champion the Green Movement.

That is, so long as all that Green keeps on flowing in her direction.

Ahh, well. I suppose it does take a lot of lettuce to feed a champion horse. Even if it is too old to win a race.



“Guns don’t even smoke much anymore”


Phil Erwin is an author, IT administrator and registered Independent living in Newbury Park. He sometimes wishes he could support Democrat ideals, but he has a visceral hatred for Lies and Damn Lies, and is none too fond of Statistics. If his writing depresses you, he recommends you visit Chip Bok’s site for a more lighthearted perspective.

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

*Scroll down to post a comment

One Response to What Gun Are They Smoking?

  1. Neil SANKEY June 1, 2015 at 11:44 am

    I suppose it is in the eye of the beholder, but I do clearly see a smoking gun!. A smoking gun that should, after the last eight years warn everyone quite clearly against voting, even the tiniest bit, Democrat!. And absolutely NOT Clinton!.
    What is it?, what is the smoking Gun?
    It is, in my opinion, the absolute, total, undeniable basic fact that you can NEVER trust a CLINTON, or their kind!
    She is, undeniably, a liar
    a cheat
    a fraud
    even worse, she is an elite who has already worked the system dry!
    For God and all our sakes, PLEASE do NOT give them another chance!.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *