Clinton Foundation — marred often by Hillary weak or in
defeat — suffers blistering criticism from observant critics across the globe.
Some call Clinton Foundation a slush fund or demonstrate its unscrupulous
tactics and dealmaking. Others focus on range of suspicious activity and
possibility of criminal conflict. Note also two notable challenges to integrity
of the foundation:
1) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2016 public
corruption probe of Clinton Foundation financial expediture; access and
donation intermingling.
2) Boston Globe’s editorial board urged the foundation to
stop accepting donations of any kind for remainder of her beaten 2016 campaign
and shut down entirely if Hillary Clinton had won a presidential election.
What is worse? Bill Clinton’s sleaze and sewage pride, but
necessarily that evisceration calls for a vivid book proposal I might explore
next year.
For time being, I will comment on Ms. Clinton’s behavior and
openly encourage writers and journalists to thoroughly interrogate Hillary
Clinton’s use and intent in using state-of-the-art technology.
Hillary is the most maligned presidential loser in American
history.
Distilling my own impression: She’s a grating woman
incapable of discovering sexual interest in her husband; this woman who, for
some reason, married a philandering man who feels nauseous at the thought of
their intercourse.
What else? Briefly, Hillary is stiff on the stump, curtly
arrogant, clueless on social cues; more obviously fake in her every attempt to
relate to people. Rodham frustrates because she feigns political adequacy and
her deficits breed self-delusion: It’s like Hillary expects applause from all
of her Black rapper friends.
I don’t know. I’ve been reading about new technology lately,
talking to family, and researching personal experience. My careful review
should aim at Hillary Clinton. Novel invisible technology can be designed and
used to control cognitive function, trigger cerebrovascular and cardiovascular
obstruction — and inflict penile and testicular pain by castration.
I want to know what Hillary Clinton thinks about these
excruciating tech capabilities. I want to know if she has access to or has
acquired these technologies.
Does she use them?
I want to know if Hillary Clinton embodies so many physical
properties of pig manure that she might ever rationalize castrating, say, a
former Clinton supporter who grew tired of her abuse and tried to expose her
ruthless cruelty.
My hope is that thoughtful scholars and journalists may
consider looking into Hillary Clinton’s history of exacting revenge on her
political enemies, and people they care about.
Finally — I will think of a woman I care about who knows
Hillary Clinton. I do consider close study of every legal means by which I and
other American citizens can pressure Ms. Rodham.
Zachary R. Wood is an assistant curator at TED, as well as a former columnist and assistant opinion editor at The Guardian, a former Robert L. Bartley Fellow at The Wall Street Journal, and a class of 2018 graduate of Williams College. He is the author of Uncensored (Random House, 2019).
