Hillary’s Emotional Instability Erupted on Election Night. She was in a ‘Psychotic Drunken Rage’
Par Stephen Lendman, 17 novembre 2016

Url de l'article:

Trump’s triumph let humanity dodge a bullet – possible nuclear war on Russia had Hillary defeated him.

He saved America from an emotionally unstable aspirant’s ascension to power – evident from her electoral loss behavior.

She erupted election night after hearing she lost, Gateway Pundit saying she “became physically violent,” citing radio host Todd Kincannon, saying:

“CNN reporter t(old) me Hillary became physically violent towards Robby Mook and John Podesta around midnight; had to be briefly restrained.”

“She was (drunk). She was in a ‘psychotic drunken rage,’ according to my reporter friend. Doctor added sedatives to the mix.”

CNN refused to air its own reporter’s account of what happened. It “banned all ‘Hillary in the bunker’ stories.”

She was too emotionally distraught, enraged, and out-of-control to make customary concession comments, congratulating her opponent on his electoral triumph.

Campaign chairman John Podesta appeared in her place. She showed up the next day. The episode provided more evidence of her unfitness to serve.

If elected, how would she handle crises all presidents face? Would she erupt in a psychotic rage – perhaps similar fashion any time things didn’t go her way?

Most crucially, would she squeeze the nuclear trigger to prove her machismo, showing she’s as tough as any man, letting Russia know who’s boss?

Political Insider said she “had a violent meltdown on election night…at some points inconsolably emotional, possibly drunk, and physically threatening towards her top aides…”

“According to author Ed Klein, (she) ‘couldn’t stop crying’ once she realized she had lost the election” she believed she’d easily win, “popping champagne corks before votes (were) counted.”

“Thank goodness for the rest of us, she isn’t going to be the actual leader of our nation. This kind of behavior shows that Trump was most definitely the correct choice for President” – between two unacceptable ones, the most widely reviled White House aspirants in US history.

A Final Comment

During the 1973 Watergate hearings, Hillary, aged 27 at the time, was a staffer for House Judiciary Committee chief counsel Jerry Zeifman.

He fired her, saying “she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

“In one legal memorandum, she advocated denying President Nixon representation by counsel” – ignoring his constitutional rights. The Sixth Amendment states:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Early in her professional career as a young lawyer, she showed appalling disdain for rule of law principles. It showed by her actions as first lady, US senator, secretary of state and two-time presidential aspirant.

Thankfully, she’s politically dead – the enormous threat of her leadership had she defeated Trump now past.

At last we can exhale while staying vigilant, holding him accountable for harmful domestic and foreign policies on his watch.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]
His new book as editor and contributor is titled « Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III. »
Visit his blog site at
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Avis de non-responsabilité: Les opinions exprimées dans cet article n'engagent que le ou les auteurs. Le Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation se dégage de toute responsabilité concernant le contenu de cet article et ne sera pas tenu responsable pour des erreurs ou informations incorrectes ou inexactes.