Hillary Clinton Blurts Out the Quiet Part About the Democrats' Elder Abuse of Dianne Feinstein

We have been reliably informed going back decades about how Democrats are allegedly the party of “compassion.” But on the issue of Dianne Feinstein’s future in the U.S. Senate, we’ve seen a whole lot of masks slipping, which in the process has revealed a level of ugliness rarely put on such obvious display by Democrat “leaders.”

When last we left you with Feinstein, the Democrat/media conundrum over her situation was taking an unseemly turn, with the additional, previously unknown “medical complications” she faced during her prolonged shingles bout taking center stage in a way the press has in the past been very reluctant to do with Democrats.

As I noted at the time, though concerning information about an elected official’s health is something voters deserve to know about, my issue with the piece was in the timing, because it came at an awfully convenient time for the contingent of Democrats and media types – including the Times – who want Feinstein to resign now so someone more “woke” can be installed in her place.

In my opinion, the way Feinstein has been treated by foes and supposed “allies” alike as powerful Democrats exploit her condition in a delicate 2024 Senate chess game suggests some pretty rampant elder abuse is taking place, which is something twice-failed Democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton accidentally blurted out in so many words in a Monday interview at the Chicago Humanities Festival.

When asked about Feinstein and the retirement question, Clinton first pointed to her friendship and working relationship with Feinstein as a way to burnish her supposed creds as an expert of sorts on the subject:

“Let me say a word about my friend and longtime colleague Dianne Feinstein,” she continued. “First of all, she has suffered greatly from the bout of shingles and encephalitis that she endured. Here is the dilemma for her: she got reelected, the people of California voted for her again, not very long ago. That was the voters’ decision to vote for her, and she has been a remarkable and very effective leader.”

She then openly admitted that Feinstein, who pictures have made abundantly clear should be home resting instead of being wheeled into the Senate and various committee rooms as a rubber stamp for the Biden agenda, should not retire because Democrats need judges confirmed. Who did she blame for her callous opinion? Republicans:

“Here’s the dilemma: the Republicans will not agree to add someone else to the Judiciary Committee if she retires,” she continued, referencing Feinstein’s powerful committee membership. (When Feinstein was absent from the Senate for nearly three months this year recovering from health issues, it created a logjam on the narrowly divided Judiciary Committee, since Democrats were unable to confirm President Joe Biden’s judicial nominees without Republican support.) “I want you to think about how crummy that is. I don’t know in her heart about whether she really would or wouldn’t, but right now, she can’t. Because if we’re going to get judges confirmed, which is one of the most important continuing obligations that we have, then we cannot afford to have her seat vacant.”

“If Republicans were to say and do the decent thing and say, well this woman was gravely ill, she had just lost her husband to cancer… of course we will let you fill this position if she retires. But they won’t say that,” she continued. “So what are we supposed to do? All these people pushing her to retire: fine, we get no more judges? I don’t think that’s a good tradeoff.”

Got that? Hillary admits that Feinstein, 89, was “gravely ill” over the last couple of months (something you don’t get over so easily) and on top of that has been suffering for over a year now over the loss of her husband to cancer. Let’s also not forget Feinstein’s rumored cognitive issues, which have continued upon her return to the Senate. But in Clinton’s view, Feinstein should be dragged if necessary into the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) because without her Biden’s more radical judicial nominees don’t make it to the Senate floor for a full vote.

Just how cold-blooded can one human being actually be? Hillary Clinton does a pretty damned good job of lowering the bar on that every time she opens her mouth to speak. I mean she is literally saying that Dianne Feinstein’s health and well-being are second to woke Democrat nominees getting shoved through the SJC.

Keep in mind here that in addition to Clinton’s infamous heartless nature being on full display, she’s also lying on a number of fronts.

For starters, if Feinstein resigned, California Gov. Gavin Newsom would get to appoint her interim replacement, which presumably would happen in a relatively short amount of time since he’s likely already considered who to put in that slot. So even if Feinstein did retire, it wouldn’t take long before Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would be able to get through the few nominees that Republicans on the committee agree should not go forth.

And that brings me to my next point: As Sens. John Kennedy (R-L.a.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and others have pointed out, Feinstein’s absence from the Senate did not bring the SJC to a screeching halt. They continued to push nominees through for floor votes. It was just a handful (I think it was four?) who Republicans believed were too radical/unqualified to fill the positions for which Biden had nominated them.

When Feinstein returned, it didn’t take long before those “stalled” nominees made it through the committee. But something else that has also “made it through” all of this, as I’ve said before, is the sobering reminder that Democrats should not be trusted with anything, not your wallet, not your Senate seat, and especially not your grandma.