Tuesday, July 5, 2016

The Clinton Double Standard

The Clinton Lower, Double Standard
The View from the Middle

I am officially numb.  My senses are completely deadened.  We have been told for months now that the FBI is completely independent and nonpartisan.  James Comey is the shining example of fairness in Washington and we can be assured that justice will be done in the Hillary Clinton e-mail server case.  His actions today, however, leave me without a shred of confidence that our government can be anything but corrupt, inept and self-serving.
The good news is that he actually did indict Hillary Clinton on every charge leveled against her.  He even used the words that describe “gross negligence” which is the trigger condemnation to suggest felony, criminal activity.  Unfortunately, he then came to a conclusion that was totally disconnected with all of his findings.  Let me remind you of what he and his team found.
First, Director Comey said that Mrs. Clinton was “extremely careless” in her handling of sensitive and even top-secret information.  Now, I don’t know about you, but being “extremely careless” is hardly a quality I’m looking for in the next President of The United States.  He added that, “any reasonable person should have known that an unclassified system (such as this) was no place for these conversations.”  I guess he doesn’t even consider Hillary a “reasonable person”, yet she is running to be the leader of the free world. 
Second, Comey spotlighted through implication a series of lies that Mrs. Clinton has been spewing for over a year now.  Remember, that she originally said that she did not send or receive any confidential or sensitive information through her private server.  Of course, we now know that to be a complete inaccuracy as over two thousand of such documents were found.  Then she changed her claim to “ no messages ‘marked’ confidential” were sent. 
Mr. Comey finally shined a light on that little fib when he stated today that they “found information that was properly classified as secret at the time it was discussed on her email”.   He continued on saying that these did not include up-classified information that changed over time, which is another excuse she has given for her total disregard for informational sensitivity.
Mrs. Clinton has also promised that none of the 34,000 emails, which she claimed were personal, contained any business related information and certainly not classified or secret information.  Wrong!  By digging and scratching through the emails of people who received Hillary’s emails, Mr. Comey found many emails that contained governmental business, but he also found three that contained classified and even secret information.  And most of those 34,000 deleted emails are gone forever because of how Hillary and her lawyers destroyed them.  How many more secret and maybe even embarrassing emails are in that collection?
Finally, Mr. Comey pointed out that it was highly likely that Hillary’s emails were hacked because of the casual way she used her system even when she was traveling in countries that we consider hostile to us.  I would include Russia, China and South Korea to be in that group. 
Then, as if he had just delivered a sparkling endorsement of Mrs. Clinton and cleared her of all accusations, Comey concluded that the FBI would not recommend that criminal charges be brought against Mrs. Clinton.  It was like reading Moby Dick, but in the end, Capt. Ahab killed the white whale and was promoted to admiral.  What?

Then, as if to put an exclamation point on the absurdity of his conclusion, Mr. Comey added this statement, “To be clear, this is not to say that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.”  Let me translate that for you.  You and I would be in jail if we did the very same thing, but Hillary Clinton (and probably Bill) will get off scot-free.  Do we need any more evidence that Washington is corrupt, inept and dysfunctional?  Solution – Term limits.

6 comments:

  1. Good insights Kevin. I like the idea of term-limits but we have them already. Every two years for U.S. reps, six for U.S. senators, and four for the oval office. We want to get rid of everyone but our representative. As bad as these characters are, we have a populous hat has insisted on these types of leaders (loosely stated) Gone is the vim and vigor of service to country and community and now we are passively going through the motions.

    I join your numbness and bewilderment. The Clinton's continue to get a pass!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good insights Kevin. I like the idea of term-limits but we have them already. Every two years for U.S. reps, six for U.S. senators, and four for the oval office. We want to get rid of everyone but our representative. As bad as these characters are, we have a populous hat has insisted on these types of leaders (loosely stated) Gone is the vim and vigor of service to country and community and now we are passively going through the motions.

    I join your numbness and bewilderment. The Clinton's continue to get a pass!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph, You make a good point, and I wish the average American understood that, but right now nearly 25% of our Senators and in their 3rd term and we have one who has been there for 40 years. It's even worse in the House. About a third of Reps are in their 7th term or higher and we have one man who has been there for over 50 years. This is all despite congressional approval being in single digits.

      If people actually took your advice and really review their representatives every election, we would be better off. Since I can't force people to do a real evaluation of their reps each two years, I think a 12 year limit would serve us well. Thanks so much for you thoughtful comment!

      Delete
  3. Just a plain ole yep.It figures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Joseph and Kevin--you both make good points. The issue is that the job is so lucrative and has so many perk's that congressmen will "sell their own" to the lobbyists, special interest or constituency in an effort to keep it versus doing what's right for the country. IMO, term limits might change that up.

    ReplyDelete