David Brock is a Sad, Sad, Man

One of my earlier post responded to an article written by David Brock in defense of Hilary Clinton's actions regarding her use of a personal email account during her tenure as our Secretary of State.  He is at it once again with what can only be describe as a drug induced episode of delusional paranoia.  If I did not know any better you would think Brock had accompanied the late Marion Berry to hotel a for some good times, but as we all know Mr. Berry sadly passed away last year so that excuse quickly runs into troubled waters.  So I am left only to believe Brock is nothing more than a delusional sycophant whose only goal in life is to impress and protect the Clinton family.

 

The article begins with a whopper, "Even though Hillary Clinton fully and clearly answered questions regarding her e-mail usage yesterday."  If the term laugh out loud comes to mind after reading this passage then I think you have captured the correct reaction to Brock's claim.  The truth is that Clinton's answers were rambling, stone faced, and had an overall air of incompetency.  This must be said out loud for all of the Clinton's attack dogs...Hilary never has and never will emanate an air of being presidential to anyone but her most obsequious supporters.

 

Brock's soldiers on in making this episode of incompetence and secrecy about none other than the "Benghazi truthers on Capitol Hill."  Brock has written two of the few editorials which have used this line of attack in the defense of Clinton and there is a reason a miniscule number of people have used the same line of argument...BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORKING! 

 

This scandal has nothing to do with Benghazi - I myself care little about how this relates to Benghazi - for all intensive purposes any hope of discovering the truth regarding what actually happened that fateful night of September 11, 2012 is long gone.  This scandal is not about conspiracy theories but instead about a lingering feelings many Americans have always had about the Clintons which include the appearance they are above the law or that they can do as they please because they are the Clintons.

 

Brock's defense only becomes more laughable as he claims that "Clinton's decision to ask the State Department to release all of her work-related e-mail is an act of unprecedented transparency. Clearly, there is nothing to hide."  This is simply preposterous as even Chris Cillizza (no conservative) at the Washington Post exclaims there are 31,380 emails will never see!  How do we none of these emails had nothing to do with Clinton's time at the State Department?  The simple answer is we do not - we may never know as the legal system may take months or years before we ever learn whether or not if the emails must be release or worse if Clinton broke the law. 

Brock ends his article by attempting to call out Trey Gowdy calling on him to "apply the same standard he's applying to Clinton to himself and his staff. They should release all their e-mail — public and private — unless, of course, they are the ones hiding something — perhaps their partisan motivations and strategic leaking to the media."  This is the only part of all of Brock's blabbering diatribe that actually makes any sense.  Yes Mr. Brock our lawmakers and civil servants should be transparent in the way they operate and that includes your beloved Hilary Clinton.

For more from A Young Republican visit The Enlightened Republican