Hillary Tanked on Meds During Doomed 2016 Campaign

Written by Nathaniel Brooks.

A recently unveiled document from the House Intelligence Committee, made public by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, discloses that Hillary Clinton faced significant mental and physical challenges while campaigning for president in 2016. The report indicates she relied on substantial doses of tranquilizers amid escalating psychological difficulties, details that were not shared with the electorate at the time.

This information emerges from a 2020 committee assessment, now declassified, which draws on intercepted Russian intelligence. It paints a picture of Clinton dealing with conditions that could have impacted her ability to lead effectively. For instance, the materials reference her management of type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease, alongside other ailments like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and deep vein thrombosis, all of which remained undisclosed during the heated election season.

To grasp the gravity, consider how such revelations might parallel corporate executives concealing health concerns from shareholders, potentially eroding confidence in leadership decisions. In politics, transparency about a candidate’s fitness is crucial, as voters deserve to evaluate all factors influencing potential governance.

Russian Intel and the Suppressed Narrative

The report highlights that Russian operatives possessed extensive compromising material on Clinton, including evidence of her health woes and alleged corrupt arrangements. Yet, they refrained from disseminating it prior to the election, reportedly anticipating her victory and planning to exploit it later to destabilize her administration.

Specific allegations include Clinton’s daily use of heavy tranquilizers to cope with intensified psycho-emotional issues, characterized by uncontrolled anger, aggression, and erratic mood swings. Descriptions portray her as driven by an overwhelming ambition, bordering on obsession, which raised alarms within her own party circles.

Intercepted Democratic National Committee communications revealed concerns from senior figures, including Barack Obama, about her suitability for office due to these problems. European partners also expressed reservations about her capacity to handle presidential duties, citing doubts over her physical and mental preparedness.

Adding layers, the documents suggest Clinton engaged in exchanges where State Department resources were offered to religious figures in return for endorsements, pointing to potential ethical breaches. This trove, if leaked by Russia, could have served as a devastating blow, akin to how leaked emails disrupted campaigns in the past, yet Moscow held back, challenging the prevailing story of Russian favoritism toward Donald Trump.

In clarifying the Russia interference angle, the intelligence community under Obama emphasized Moscow’s efforts to aid Trump, while sidelining this countervailing evidence. Critics argue this selective focus fueled a narrative aimed at undermining Trump’s legitimacy from the outset, ignoring indicators that Putin viewed Clinton as the probable winner and prepared accordingly.

Implications for Obama Administration Actions

The declassification spotlights decisions within the Obama White House, questioning why potentially unfit candidacy proceeded with full support. Officials reportedly knew of these vulnerabilities but chose to suppress them, prioritizing the collusion probe instead.

Former CIA Director John Brennan and others are implicated in pushing a flawed assessment that overstated Russian intent to boost Trump, while downplaying or omitting the Clinton-related intelligence. This approach, the report contends, amounted to a politicization of security matters, eroding trust in institutional processes.

For discerning readers, this evokes scenarios where biased reporting in business audits leads to misguided investments; here, it pertains to national leadership, where incomplete information can sway electoral outcomes and policy directions.

Further details from the report note Russia’s awareness of a Clinton-sanctioned plan to tie Trump to hackers, diverting attention from her email controversies. Despite this, the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment omitted such nuances, focusing narrowly on interference claims that have since been scrutinized for accuracy.

The broader fallout includes calls for accountability, with Gabbard advocating referrals to the Justice Department for possible prosecutions. This stems from views that the actions constituted an attempt to subvert the electoral will, framing it as a prolonged effort to hinder Trump’s presidency.

Recent commentary underscores how these disclosures revisit long-debated events, prompting reevaluations of what constituted genuine threats versus manufactured crises. In my professional observation, integrated thoughtfully, this highlights the perils of intelligence manipulation, where facts are bent to serve agendas rather than inform the public accurately.

Shifting Perspectives on 2016 Election Integrity

As these elements come to light, they reshape understandings of the 2016 race, suggesting the real risks lay not solely in foreign meddling but in domestic oversights and deceptions. The decision by Russia to withhold damaging Clinton information contradicts assertions of pro-Trump bias, implying Moscow’s strategies were more nuanced.

Public reactions have varied, with some seeing vindication for Trump’s hoax claims, while others caution against rewriting history without full context. Bipartisan reports from the past, like the Senate Intelligence Committee’s findings, affirmed Russian active measures, yet these new revelations question the completeness of those narratives.

To relate this to everyday concerns, imagine discovering hidden flaws in a product’s safety after purchase; voters faced a similar predicament, potentially electing under incomplete knowledge. This underscores the need for rigorous vetting and disclosure in democratic processes.

Gabbard’s releases, including memos from Obama-era officials, illustrate a post-election pivot in assessments, from pre-vote conclusions of limited interference to amplified claims thereafter. This shift, allegedly directed to discredit Trump, raises ethical questions about power transitions.

Moreover, the report touches on Clinton’s alleged quid pro quo dealings, where funding promises secured political backing, further complicating her campaign’s integrity. Such practices, if verified, mirror influence-peddling scandals that have toppled figures in various sectors.

In expanding on the psycho-emotional aspects, sources describe Clinton’s states as including fits of cheerfulness interspersed with aggression, managed through medication. This portrayal, drawn from DNC internals, fueled internal doubts about her stability under presidential pressures.

The absence of Russian leaks during critical campaign moments, despite possessing this material, serves as a pivotal point. It suggests Putin’s calculus favored a weakened Clinton in office over aiding Trump, flipping the script on years of media and investigative focus.

Ultimately, these disclosures prompt a reassessment of accountability mechanisms, ensuring intelligence serves truth over partisanship. As a journalist, I find this juncture critical for restoring institutional credibility, demanding thorough probes into all facets of the 2016 saga.

Our Take

The emergence of this declassified material compels a sober reflection on the vulnerabilities exposed in America’s electoral framework. While safeguarding candidate privacy is important, the suppression of pertinent health and ethical concerns about Clinton undermines voter autonomy. In my view, this not only validates skepticism toward the Russia collusion storyline but also calls for stringent reforms to prevent future manipulations. Prioritizing unvarnished transparency over political expediency is essential to uphold democratic principles, lest we risk repeating history’s oversights.