The Hillary Factor – Trust is Irrelevant to Some

Last week I had occasion to speak with a colleague about the current political campaign circus. The colleague in question is a lawyer and a seemingly intelligent person. But for some reason she is an ardent supporter of Hillary Clinton.

This support seems insupportable in light of the scandals that have plagued Mrs. Clinton in the wake of the Benghazi incident and the revelations that have come to the fore regarding her unsecured email server containing highly classified information. Public polling has progressively shown that less and less people trust her and find her credible or honest. In fact, it might be suggested that her primary interest in the White House can be summed up in three things. Number one, being the first woman president; number two, the first husband and wife presidents and third, but most important, the opportunity to use government for more graft and personal financial gain. Imagine the Lincoln bedroom being rented out to the highest bidder, and national security information for sale to foreign powers if they are willing to pay enough money to her personal benefit.

And so, I asked the obvious question to my colleague; what about the credibility factor and the apparent dishonesty? Her answer was astounding. It was better; she said to have a dishonest and untrustworthy Hillary Clinton as president than anyone else who might be, for example, anti-abortion. This lack of logical thought simply makes no sense, regardless of how you cut it. Abortion rights are more important than the survival of the nation? It was for all practical purposes, insane.

Now critics of my observation here will assert, correctly, that this is a poll of only one person. Yes, it is, and one person is not a valid statistical sample. But this single anecdotal example does illustrate an important point; if there is one person who takes this view then there will be others. The only question is finding them and how many there are. Also, we must ask about others who are disinterested or ignorant of the matter, willingly or otherwise.

But another aspect of this incident is again, the question of national security. If Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, was foolish enough to conduct high-level government business on an unsecured computer network then what might she do if she was president? When the fact of the unsecured server became common knowledge the first idea that occurred to this writer was the great likelihood that it was being used to communicate with donors to what Rush Limbaugh likes to call the “Clinton Crime Family Foundation.” The fact that the server was wiped of its data suggests very strongly that the real reason was not to destroy evidence of wrongdoing in connection with the Benghazi incident, or of classified communications. Those issues have been whitewashed and can be whitewashed again by the media. No; the most obvious reason for wiping the server would be to remove evidence of bribery.

American government has never been completely free of corruption. In fact, it seems that in every generation something comes to the fore testifying to the fact that we are just as potentially corrupt as any other nation. Richard Nixon’s Watergate incident and the Teapot Dome scandal, which occurred during the Harding presidency are two that come to mind, other than more recent incidents. But the pace of major incidents appears to be accelerating and now, if we have people who are willing to elect someone with a demonstrated track record of corrupt or untrustworthy behavior then we have to ask whether or not such values matter to the public any longer.   Perhaps they don’t. There was enough scandal surrounding Bill Clinton to derail his election bid, but it failed to do so. Perhaps the public needs an injection of moral fiber before it goes to the polling places on Election Day. It might make a tremendous difference to the future of the nation.

Comments are closed.