That most of the major news outlets tilt left, and have been providing Hillary Clinton with varying degrees of support since she announced her candidacy would come as little surprise to most observers. However, the last few weeks have seen a fundamental shift in approach by these same news outlets, as they have abandoned all pretense of objectivity in an all out effort to elect Hillary Clinton. They have attempted to justify those efforts by the increasingly frantic assertion that Donald Trump is not qualified to be President. However, these same media outlets have been equally determined in their efforts to avoid any discussion of the fact that Hillary Clinton is, by any objective standard – and without regard to her political positions — manifestly unqualified for the Oval Office.
Strong evidence in support of this proposition relates to her intentional establishment and use of an illicit private server while serving as Secretary of State, to which and from which classified information was sent for a number of years. This was done in circumvention of U.S. law, which acts were also likely crimes. This one decision, reaffirmed hundreds if not thousands of times by Hillary Clinton through her continued use of the Server for years provides clear evidence that she is unfit for the Presidency. The reasons for that conclusion are based upon the fact that:
- Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with classified information. While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton intentionally set up and used for official communications an unsecure, easily hackable private server that was not sanctioned by the U.S. Government. Much of the discussion concerning her use of that Server has revolved around whether she should have been indicted, and more on that below. However, the more important question is whether Hillary Clinton can be trusted with the type of classified information necessarily used by all Presidents, and upon which our safety and security will likely depend. While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was entrusted with much classified information and the responsibility to keep it safe and secure, and she breached that trust. Now, she is asking us to entrust her with even greater secrets and greater responsibility. Why should we do that, when she has already demonstrated that she can’t be trusted? Why should we risk electing someone like that President?
- Hillary Clinton should have been indicted. Hillary Clinton has been effective in convincing her supporters that fitness standards should be based on one’s ability to avoid indictment. However, even if one believes in such a low bar, based solely on the information publicly available, Hillary Clinton should have been indicted for her systematic and intentional mishandling of classified information while serving as Secretary of State. Moreover, likely recognizing the potential risk of investigation she then had the Server “wiped” in an effort to erase information on the Server. One generally does not destroy information in advance of a possible investigation unless they subjectively believe that that information may be damaging, if not criminal. One reason is that the destruction of such evidence is itself typically a crime. That Hillary Clinton was not indicted by an Obama Administration actively seeking her election does not prove her innocence, and as much as half of the public believes that she should have been indicted for “Servergate”. Why should we risk electing someone like that President?
- Hillary Clinton likely believes that she is above the law. If you can systematically and intentionally mishandle classified information without any penalty, you can with some justification believe that what you do is not subject to meaningful legal restraints. Hillary Clinton’s behavior throughout “Servergate” makes it pretty clear that she believes that law is only for the little people, who she no doubt would call the “Deplorables”. Given the enormous power conferred on any President, it is dangerous to elect someone who likely believes that they are above the law, and Hillary Clinton pretty clearly views herself as too big to jail. Why should we risk electing someone like that President?
- Hillary Clinton may be subject to blackmail. What information was on Hillary Clinton’s illicit Server that needed to be so hurriedly “wiped”, when that act alone may have been a crime? Her illicit Server was also at significant risk of being hacked by the intelligence services of our enemies. If our enemies hacked her Server before it was “wiped”, and her Server contained evidence of misconduct, how big of a risk are we under that she might be blackmailed? Never before have we elected a President who might be so fatally compromised. Why should we risk electing someone like that President?
- Hillary Clinton lacks the good judgment that the Presidency demands. Hillary Clinton committed acts that she either knew or should have known were potentially harmful to the security of this country, were likely illegal, evidenced a contempt for the law, and exposed her – and us – to the risk of hacking and potential blackmail. She did most of this while serving as Secretary of State, and after having previously served as Senator and as First Lady. She was therefore no novice. Why would she do that? What does that say about her judgment? Why should we risk electing someone like that President?
The answer is, we should not. And we can reach that conclusion without even discussing her deplorable record as Secretary of State.