[spinestein]

[I acknowledged that he was being facetious about Hillary not knowing. The point of this post is that he apparently knows very little about the case. He was not being facetious when he tried to explain the case to her. He wasn’t even close to most of the facts.]

Even so, the public doesn't (and won't) care about the details of this. They're a matter of public record so that historians can look back at Senator Clinton and proclaim her to be a liar and a crook, but for right now she's the Democratic candidate for President and her qualifications are that she was co-president for eight years already and she is a member of an important victim class (oppressed woman in a patriarchal society) and the public needs someone as president who's willing and able to give away lots of government goodies to its supporters. Who better to do this than someone with a track record of quid pro quo.

[rob777]

"The point of this post is that he apparently knows very little about the case."


Or, he is parroting the Clinton line as part of the parody. If he really thought that this was all there was to the case, the rest of the parody about her mind being "jello", would not have made any sense. The whole thing was a parody of her testimony over the Whitewater scandal where she claimed to have "forgotten" just about everything. Why draw a parallel to other cover ups in the way of parody if you did not know that there was anything to cover up? It just does not make sense.