Here is my conundrum.  On the left is HRC around  9 AM on the morning of 9-11, before she departs feeling ill.  On the right is HRC around 1 PM outside Chelsea’s apartment.  The difference in her look is striking (click to enlarge).

I am not sure what to make of this.  In one way, the pictures confirm the Clinton Campaign meme that HRC was very dehydrated on the morning of 9-11, 2016. You can see how HRC looks like her skin is sagging and more wrinkles are apparent in the morning.  By noon her face is filled out and the wrinkles are very muted.

My mother has had bouts of dehydration that put her in the hospital (she is over 90) and I have seen similar changes in her appearance. But they don’t usually show up in under 4 hours (estimated time between the pictures). Of course, my mother is much older.

And before anyone asks, no I do not buy into the “body double” theory.

But I will point out that in the Doctor’s note for HRC the doctor was quite clear that she did not “examine” HRC until she was home, much later in the day.  This does not rule out her being “with” HRC earlier in the day (given the Clinton penchant with selecting words to divert details). So the comments in the letter make sense in one way (Hat Tip Powerline):

On Sunday, September 11 at the 9/11 Memorial event, she became overheated and dehydrated and as a result felt dizzy. I examined her immediately upon her return home; she was re-hydrating and recovering nicely.

So, it would seem HRC may have been given an IV-boost at Chelsea’s.  But again, why not mention that? I do not believe drinking fluids can make that big of a difference in 4 hours.  I am not a doctor – but I do have a BS in Biology and I am pretty sure basic fluid intake does not work that well, that fast.

So if she was given an IV to boost her, why not just say so??

Update: Of course I missed one obvious answer – the Democrat pliant news media could had “photo-shopped” a few years off before they released the second picture

Tags: 9-11, Chelsea, Clinton, Faint