Opinion

BACKER: Bitter Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Like Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump — Or Anyone Else

REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Dan Backer Attorney
Font Size:

In case you were wondering, Hillary Clinton is still bitter about the 2016 election. And she’s out for revenge.

Clinton’s latest target was Tulsi Gabbard, whom she described as a “Russian asset” and the Kremlin’s preferred third-party candidate. Clinton also hyperventilated about “a bunch of sites and bots” helping Gabbard’s campaign, as if the American people aren’t intelligent enough to choose whom to support or oppose. In 2016, millions of Americans were smart enough to choose Clinton’s opponent, and they’ll choose wisely again — Russia fear-mongering aside.

But for Clinton to claim any moral high ground isn’t just hypocritical; it’s beyond belief. Hillary Clinton essentially accused Gabbard — a military veteran — of treason. Even other Democrats acknowledge how ridiculous that is — which is about as ironic as it gets.

Ironic, because Clinton had a different feeling about the Russians during the 2016 election, when she sought out opposition research from, as she puts it now, “Russian assets” to dig up dirt on President Trump and his campaign. To do it, the Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie lawyer Marc Elias for the presidential election cycle, who then hired Fusion GPS to conduct “opposition research” on Trump, in the form of the infamous “pee dossier.” After that, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee funneled over $1 million through Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS. (Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook personally approved the payment to Perkins Coie.)

Confusing? It was supposed to be. The Clinton machine did whatever it could to conceal the money trail, making their dirty tricks illegal, in exactly the same way upheld by the Supreme Court.

In the end, Fusion GPS paid a total of approximately $168,000 for Steele and his company Orbis to solicit information from foreign nationals — namely, current and former Russian officials. That’s right: Russians. Foreign interference was no big deal if it could benefit one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In truth, Clinton has no right to any high ground — from foreign interference to campaign finance. During the same election cycle, the Clinton machine orchestrated an $84 million money laundering scheme to funnel excessive six-figure contributions into her campaign. The single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history involved six-figure checks from mega-donors like fashion icon Calvin Klein and “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane to the “Hillary Victory Fund.” Those contributions were transferred illegally through dozens of Democratic state parties (acting as straw men), over to the DNC, and ultimately into the hands of Clinton’s campaign.

Even the Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) own general counsel called for an investigation into the scandal, only for a feckless FEC to bury it altogether. (It seems FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a pro-Clinton Democrat, was too busy harassing President Trump with #FakeLaws to actually enforce real ones.)

The Democratic establishment’s cozy relationship with Clinton was one of the reasons Gabbard famously resigned from the DNC in 2016, calling out how the DNC “secretly chose their nominee over a year before the primary elections even occurred.” Perhaps that’s why Clinton’s claws are out for Gabbard now.

If Democrats are concerned about foreign interference and campaign finance violations, there is still plenty of time to investigate one of their own. But they don’t actually care. What Democrats care about, as their impeachment inquiry suggests, is poking their thumb in the eye of President Trump. If it pertains to Clinton, it becomes a very different blind eye.

What American politics needs is less hypocritical talk, and more walking the walk. What we need is less Hillary Clinton.

Dan Backer is founding attorney of Political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Virginia. He is a veteran campaign counsel who has served more than 100 candidates, PACs and political organizations.


The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of The Daily Caller.