Just when I thought Hillary couldn't do anything that would shock or surprise me, along comes the delusional account of the Bosnian tarmac incident.
Honestly, what was she thinking?
For those who may be unaware, Hillary, while on the campaign trail last week, was talking about her vast foreign policy experience.
She noted that once, while landing in Bosnia, she came under sniper fire and had to run - head down - to a car waiting on the tarmac.
Well, it turns out that a CBS News crew happened to be filming the event and no such thing happened.
The film shows a smiling Hillary, Chelsea and the usual entourage exiting the plane and being greeted by a group of friendly people.
One of the people turned out to be an elementary school-aged girl who read a poem to Hillary while the group stood on the tarmac.
When confronted with the discrepancy, Hillary first said she misspoke. Later, she said she was sleep-deprived.
Hillary can say whatever she wants - and she will - but I have a tough time understanding how sleep-deprived you would have to be to tell a whopper like that.
Seems to me a person would remember in no small detail whether or not they came under sniper fire.
"Hey, remember that time we landed in Bosnia? Were there snipers shooting at us or was there a little girl reading poetry? Darn if I can remember."
Yeah, Hillary's sleep-deprived all right. She's also truth-deprived, character-deprived and integrity-deprived.
I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised. I understand that all politicians are shady to a degree. It's almost like it's a requirement these days.
But Hillary raises shady to a new level.
Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair. There certainly are some good qualities to Hillary. I think, deep down, she really does care about people. I think she does feel genuine empathy for the struggling masses. And I think she truly does want to help people.
Problem is, she figures the best way to help people is to become president. And she is willing to do just about anything to become president. It's no-holds-barred, pedal-to-the-metal, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink politics at its worst - or best - depending on your point of view.
She has no problem being disingenuous, devious or just plain untruthful. It's a classic case of the end justifying the means.
Hillary is no stranger to this type of behavior, going back as far as I can remember.
Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, her failed attempt at healthcare reform.
She was forever making blanket statements, like, "We turned over everything we had" or "our processes have been completely transparent" when quite the converse was true.
Even when her husband was going through his trials and tribulations with regard to a particular intern in the Oval Office, she made the statement that she was not one of those "stand-by-your-man" kind of women when, in point of fact, that's exactly what she was.
More recently, in 2007, she, all the other Democrat candidates for president and the Democratic National Committee agreed - in writing and in principle - to punish Florida and Michigan for moving up their primary elections.
Those delegates would not be seated at the convention.
Of course, that was when Hillary assumed - as did everyone else in the free world - that she was the presumptive nominee.
She figured she'd have the nomination wrapped up before Super Tuesday and the Florida and Michigan delegates would be irrelevant.
But now that they are relevant, she has no problem talking about how all those voters must not be disenfranchised.
The woman has no shame.
But there are some untruths that may come back to haunt Hillary.
These prevarications are in regard to a gala/fundraiser in Hollywood and a man named Peter Paul.
Type Paul v. Clinton in Google and read away. Watch the videos, too. It's truly fascinating.
The only thing more fascinating is the fact that the mainstream media has largely ignored the story.
Paul v. Clinton is a complaint for damages and restitution filed by Paul against the Clintons and others. He claims fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment and civil conspiracy.
April 25 is the date when a status conference is scheduled in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.
At that time - unless Clinton attorneys can delay the process - it is expected a judge will finally set a trial date which would pave the way for discovery and subpoenas for Hillary, Bill and others.
The case is far too complex to go into here, but the bottom line is that Paul allegedly ponied up around $1.6 million for Hillary's 2000 Senate campaign.
As a result of Paul's generosity, Bill was supposed to join Paul's company, Stan Lee Media, for one year after leaving the White House.
Paul claims Bill reneged on the deal and caused the company to collapse.
The whole thing started to go bad after the Washington Post reported Paul was a convicted felon 20 years earlier. So through a series of alleged lies and bogus Federal Election Commission filings, Hillary hid a significant portion of the contributions, claimed she barely knew Paul, and said she never took any money from him.
The Clintons threw a campaign manager under the bus. He was convicted of FEC violations and did some time. The judge in that case - a Clinton appointee - said Hillary had no idea what her campaign manager was up to.
The problem for Hillary is that Paul has all this pesky video that shows Hillary knew quite well what was going on and was very appreciative of Paul's contributions. He also has Hillary on tape as being in the know about the Hollywood gala and soliciting a performance from Cher - apparent felonies under federal election law that might launch a whole new FEC probe with Hillary as the target.
I don't know if Paul's complaint has any legs. But if it hinges on whether or not Hillary is capable of lying, I'd say there's a better-than-average chance it'll run like a gazelle.
