WASHINGTON — Through the years, one of my favorite sallies against the Clintons has been referring to Hillary Clinton as "Bruno." At times, readers have asked, "Why do you call her Bruno?" It is because there has always been an atmosphere of thuggishness about her. Another way of putting it is, time and again, she acts as though the rule of law does not pertain to her -- for instance, on the matter of the many women who have willingly or unwillingly been pulled into her husband's lubricious ambit. How many times have you read or heard a quote attributed to her where she vows to "crush" or "crucify" a woman whom Bill Clinton rutted with? One even reads such quotes in the mainstream media, or MSM. Yet she is portrayed as a champion of women.
Just last week I read Hillary Clinton quotes full of menace in the Washington Post. And this week I read some in the venerable New York Times. Were similar quotes ever attributed to Nancy Reagan, or any other first lady? But then again, no other first lady was married to Bill Clinton.
Of course, today the matronly Hillary Clinton is long past her prime as a plausible Bruno. As she breaks out in coughing spells and has to be propped up at the lectern in her heavily cushioned pantsuits, it is easy for us to have forgotten the intimidating specter she struck for such women as Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, the young Monica Lewinsky or even Juanita Broaddrick, who was allegedly raped by smiling Bill. Yet in decades past, Hillary Clinton was a highly volatile figure and, in fact, posed a threat to White House personnel. There are all those witnesses who have reported seeing her bean her husband or members of the Secret Service with a book or a lamp. I think even the loyal George Stephanopoulos reported her aggression.
As a matter of public record, there is a catalogue of private investigators employed by Clinton, and some of their exploits are even recorded. In fact, if elected, she will be the first presidential candidate ever to have hired private investigators to serve her ends en route to the White House. In recent weeks, both the Post and the Times reported that she employed San Francisco private investigator Jack Palladino to harass and vilify Gennifer Flowers when she appeared on the scene in the early 1990s. But there were others.
I have listed the names and adventures of three more private investigators employed by Clinton in my 2007 book, "The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President's Life After the White House." I find it curious that neither newspaper mentioned these fellows. Maybe the mistake is innocent. Possibly the newspapers put too much trust in Carl Bernstein, whose book on Clinton they both cited. For some reason he only mentions Palladino, though I know from my sources that he was aware of the other investigators and even called one or two of them. People can cut a lot of corners when covering the Clintons, eh, Carl?
Yet maybe it is not so innocent. Based just on what I have written about the employment of these investigators, Clinton's claim of being a champion of women is very much in doubt. In fact, their employment makes it evident that she has enabled Bill Clinton's goatishness.
In the early 1980s in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton hired Ivan Duda to collect the names of her husband's women, not to prepare for a divorce, as some thought, but rather to prepare, as Duda told me, "for any charges that might come up" regarding scandal in his forthcoming election campaign. Then there is Los Angeles investigator Anthony Pellicano, who helped the Clintons in their efforts of intimidation in the 1992 election and was tapped again to quiet down Lewinsky in 1998. Hillary Clinton is particularly skittish about Pellicano because he is spending time in the big house for possession of military-grade plastic explosives and hand grenades. The aforementioned Palladino has been paid handsomely for his duties. Finally, there is Terry Lenzner, about whom I know very little, save that I think he was a football player.
I can well understand why Clinton would want to keep hidden away all these sleuths and their unfortunate targets. Her complicit MSM might, too. But why did she bring forward at her debate with Trump the name of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado? And why has her campaign been so eager to book Machado all over television ever since? It's possible Trump did make an unseemly reference to her weight 20 years ago during the contest. Or, possibly, that was his job. But since then, Machado has been allegedly engaged in criminal behavior and pornography. Now she is a spokeswoman for Clinton. I guess having such a scandalous woman representing Clinton's campaign is just one more sign of the Clintons' debasement of America. Apparently the MSM do not mind being part of this debasement.
