An interesting thought, and very Mediterranean (as per your quote of the Italian), but how can we know whether Beastwoman was the "arranger" of Imus's kneecap removal?
Well, you never can be sure. Peter Paul (as posted by Doug from Upland) has suggested this. PP has his own good reasons not to like hillary, of course.
The question is, I suppose, why did everyone react so differently this time to Imus's comment? It's no worse than what he has probably said a thousand times before. And he has often been lambasted for it, but has easily survived. So the question arises, what was different this time?
It was, of course, entirely the left wing establishment that came down on him. The media, the talking heads, the designated black leaders, and most significantly, his bosses. Some conservatives applauded, but they had nothing to do with bringing him down.
CBS loses quite a lot of audience by firing him, if what I hear is correct. This little spat could actually have been played for still more publicity. And it could easily have been explained that he was sorry, that he meant no harm, and that he was just using standard black trash talk that he had learned from his good black friends. The Rutgers basketball team have now officially forgiven him.
So, why did they fire him? We don't know for sure, of course, but one PLAUSIBLE explanation is that one of hillary's hitpersons spoke to her contacts at CBS and said there might be a little regulatory trouble down the line if they don't fire Imus and hillary gets into the White House next year. From her, that would be an all too believable threat.
Why did she want Imus fired? Because he's one of the few people her base listens to that is capable of trashing her on the air at any time. None of her potential voters are going to be listening to Rush, but they might well be listening to Imus. And she knows that the Democrat base doesn't like her very much to begin with. They'd rather vote for her than a Republican, but not with much enthusiasm.