In her book What Happened, Hillary Clinton wrote this about the notorious and lurid dossier that opposition researchers had assembled on Donald Trump when he was a candidate for president in the 2016 campaign:
"The FBI ... began investigating a dossier prepared by a well-respected former British spy that contained explosive and salacious allegations about compromising information the Russians had on Trump. The Intelligence Community took the dossier seriously enough that it briefed both President Obama and President Elect Trump on its contents before the inauguration."
This much we already knew from news reports. But in hindsight, how queer that Clinton should have written about and talked up this dossier as though she had been a mere observer of the events that led to its creation and use. Because this week, it has been revealed that Clinton's campaign actually paid to create that very dossier. So had the Democratic National Committee, run by faithful flunky, Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
It's no surprise that Clinton or her staff would play dumb about this. The dossier is a radioactive document, with which no one wants to be associated. Not only are much of its contents known to be false, but it also includes obscene allegations about Trump that we won't reprint here.
Clinton's attorney, Marc Elias, and senior campaign officials have been lying through their teeth for a year about their involvement in the dossier. When reporters tried to report the story, these Clinton Democrats pushed back hard, claiming it was an out-and-out lie. Now, their own lies have been laid bare.
The truth about the dossier is a reminder of what was and what was not at stake in last year's presidential contest. Ever since Trump's election, the moral posturing by some of America's sleaziest liars has become nearly unbearable.
In the time since the election, the Left has taken up the banner of "Resistance." Each time Trump makes another false, crude, bizarre, or offensive comment, they point back to the choice in November and frame the election as if falsehood conquered truth, darkness overpowered light, and an evil empire overcame good.
In the real world, however, the 2016 campaign was nothing like that. It was a contest between Trump's obvious and extensive disconnection from facts and Clinton's conniving, calculated, and self-serving lies that fit snugly into her 40-year career of corruption and falsehood.
Both Clinton's involvement in this sleazy dossier, and her team's coverup of wrongdoing, are par for the course she set back in Arkansas in the 1980s. Last year marked its latest chapter, when she evaded lawful FOIA requests and congressional inquiries by illegally hiding all of her work correspondence on a private server. But it was never just about the emails. It was about her belief that she is above the law, and about how this translated into action that was in keeping with all the mendacity of her long career to that point.
Not long before Clinton was heroically warning the nation about the threat posed by Russia, her husband was taking $500,000 from a Kremlin-tied bank for a single speech in Moscow. Long, long before that, she made a 10,000 percent profit trading cattle futures over a 10-month period, a feat impossible to achieve honestly that she still insists was no big deal. Somewhere in between those two events, she was seen enabling her husband's predations upon women, making the world safer for her dear friend and donor, Harvey Weinstein.
If you wonder why voters chose not to elect Clinton, even though it meant something as extraordinary as choosing Trump, you need look no further.