As we go to the polls in less than a week, which of the candidates will be best able to represent America and its citizens? That is the crucial question. That we might come to differing conclusions about who that person should be, based on positions on policy and various personality traits, is obvious. In the present election, choosing is especially difficult since so many of us are dissatisfied with our choices. But, choose we must, and one way to do so is through a process of elimination. Specifically, as between Clinton and Trump, who is least able to represent America and its citizens for the next four years as President?
On October 28, the FBI announced that it was re-opening its criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton as a result of her intentional use of an illicit private server while serving as Secretary of State. Remember that her illicit private server was one to which and from which much classified information was sent while she was Secretary of State. Remember that this was done in circumvention of U.S. law, which acts were also likely crimes. Remember that this one decision was reaffirmed hundreds if not thousands of times by Hillary Clinton through her continued use of the Server, for years. Remember that her server was a significant security risk, and may have been hacked. Above all, remember that these facts are not in dispute, and they raise serious questions about whether she – or anyone acting as she did – is qualified for the Presidency.
As a result of that misconduct, in articles published October 7, and entitled “Hillary Clinton Is Unfit To Be President”, and in a follow up article on November 1, entitled “Hillary Clinton Is Still Unfit To Be President”, the present author asked whether we should risk electing Hillary Clinton as President.
Yesterday, Fox News reported that sources within the FBI have said that an indictment is “likely” in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, “barring some obstruction in some way” from the Justice Department. Additionally, Fox News also reported that FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton’s server had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.
In my articles of October 7, and November 1, I asked what was on Hillary Clinton’s illicit server that had to be so hurriedly “wiped” after she likely realized an investigation possible. After all, the destruction of evidence in an effort to obstruct an investigation is itself a crime, and one likely does not commit that crime unless the underlying crime is far more serious. Based on reports yesterday, we now know what that crime likely was: pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation.
In my articles of October 7, and November 1, I asked whether or not Hillary Clinton’s illicit server had been hacked, and whether we should risk electing someone as President whose communications likely had been compromised. Based on reports yesterday, we now know that the FBI believes with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton’s illicit server had been hacked.
In my articles of October 7, and November 1, I asked whether or not Hillary Clinton was at risk for being blackmailed. Let’s connect the dots: Hillary Clinton intentionally used an illicit private server while serving as Secretary of State, that her illicit server was one to which and from which much classified information was sent while she was Secretary of State, that such acts were likely crimes, that the FBI believes that her illicit server was hacked, and that it likely contained evidence of criminal misconduct sufficient to support a criminal indictment.
In my articles of October 7, and November 1, I asked what risk we might be under if we were to elect Hillary Clinton as President, given her past behavior, especially her behavior as Secretary of State, which is the only truly executive government position that she has ever held. A better question is, if elected President, of the two candidates, will Hillary Clinton be best able to represent America and its citizens? Actually, the best question is, if elected President, who will Hillary Clinton likely represent? Based on what has been reported, the answer is that as President she may well represent the five foreign intelligence services that the FBI believes – with 99% accuracy — hacked her server. Can we afford to take that risk?
