Guess who finally admitted he had no evidence against Hillary Clinton…
- Stephanopoulis: Do you have any evidence that a crime may have been committed?
- Schweizer: Well if you look at [all sorts of places and all sorts of nervous blah blah blah] …certainly it warants investigation.
- Stephanopoulis: A criminal investigation?
- Schweizer: We’ll see! [blah blah blah]
- Stephanopoulis: As you know the Clinton campaign insists you haven’t produced a shred of evidence that there was any official action as secretary that supported the interest of donors. We’ve done investigative work here at ABC News and found no proof of any kind of direct action. And an independent ethics expert, Bill Allison, found that…
- Stephanopoulis: No smoking gun. Is there a smoking gun?
- Schweizer: Yeah, the smoking gun is in the pattern of behavoir [whatever the fuck that means].
- Stephanopoulis: But the assistant secretary who sat on the committed said she never intervened on any of these issues at all.
- Schweizer: Well I think that deserves further scrutiny. I would question that. [Wow, what a smoking gun!]
- Stephanopoulis: Based on what? Based on what?
- Schweizer: Well, I think based on her track record–
- Stephanopoulis: Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?
- Schweizer: No, we don’t have direct evidence… [And right there, you need to SHUT THE FUCK UP. Of course he doesn’t] …but, it warrants further investigation is, again George, is part of the broader pattern. You either have to come to the conclusion that these are all coincidences, or something else is afoot.
Sounds like the real pattern here is, we desperately want to find some dirt on the Clintons that we’re willing to drudge up anything we possibly can. You know, just like Starr did to them before, and ended up with nothing but a fucking blowjob. And like you’re doing to Obama.
You’re desperate to make ‘both sides’ just as dirty. But you can’t. Because they’re not. Your side is still the wrong side, period.
– posted at Tumblr