Why does controversy seem to follow Hillary Clinton around like flies on a jackass? Is it due to the “vast right-wing conspiracy,” or could it be something else — something more sinister?
If you were around in the 90s, you know the word “scandal” and the name “Clinton” were virtually synonymous.
From Whitewater to Hillary’s enabling Bill’s sexual attacks on women to Travelgate, etc.
World Net Daily writes, “Images have emerged following Monday night’s 2016 presidential debate between Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump that are fueling widespread speculation online that Clinton may have been wired for the event. And some say she may have been wearing a battery pack, an earpiece, a microphone and a wire.” — WND.com
This is not the first time people have noticed what appears to be a listening device in Mrs. Clinton left ear. An earlier report noticed Hillary was wearing the same ear-style listening device during last months “Commander-in-Chief” forum held in the Big Apple.
Needless to say, the pictures have caused speculation that she is receiving coaching by one of her aids, and possibly others, while she is answering questions about the economy, world affairs and from her so-called “fact-checking” team.
“Now a Reuters photo of Clinton [from the first debate]shows she may have had the same type of device in her ear again…Was she getting instructions from her campaign team while she was engaged in the debate?” — ibid.
Numerous pictures have surfaced after the debate, showing Hillary bending over to shake hands with members of the audience, and what appears to be a small box tucked deep at her lower back clipping onto her waistband with a wire running up under her jacket all the way to her neckline.
“Stage actors often use these to help with cues and missed lines during performances. They are meant to be concealed, and with Bluetooth technology, those speaking to Clinton through it wouldn’t even have to be in the same city.” — ibid.
Her supporters have speculated saying it may simply be a hearing aid. After all, it is not uncommon for folks Hillary’s age to use such a device. If this is true, then why not simply come out and say it?
And herein lies the problem. If the Clinton Campaign had announced beforehand that she was wearing such a device, then a tech savvy individual could monitor the frequencies to make sure that it was a hearing aid and not a listening device for cheating.
It should be noted that the FEC hasn’t specifically passed a rule forbidding the use of ear mics during a debate. It has just been assumed by both parties that this wouldn’t be fair. And therefore, hasn’t been done before.
A Maryland voter who noticed the earpiece during the Commander-in-Chief forum wrote FEC Commissioner Matthew Petersen on Sept. 8 seeking a “clear response” to the matter.
“I read reports that during the televised event questioning each of the candidates on their qualifications to serve as Commander in Chief, that Secretary Clinton had a microphone in her ear to receive prompting and guidance from advisers off stage…Surely this is a more serious violation of competition than the doping which the Olympics have had to clean up…Can you please confirm that your commission will take conclusive steps to ensure that no such cheating takes place during the debates?” the letter concluded. —WorldTribune.com
Two weeks passed without a response, so a follow-up letter was sent. This time, a response was forthcoming, but it was from the legal department of the FEC explaining how one properly files a complaint.
Mr. Laurence B. gave it one more shot writing, “As a lawyer, I’m sure you can differentiate between a complaint, and a request for a clear statement of rules. My email is seeking the latter…I would be very grateful if you could let me know whether or not there is a clear rule prohibiting candidates from wearing ear mics and if so, whether or not it is your intention to enforce that rule.” — ibid.
He has yet to receive a response.