Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Yes, everything is a -gate these days, and probably will be for all eternity in American politics.

Deal with it.

So.

Things like this are why I generally refer to Hillary Clinton as a snake.  You can never quite get the Clintons on anything, it seems, though they’ve never had quite the… stain resistance of good ol’ Teflon Ron.

Sure, no charges will be pressed, but anyone who was actually expecting charges is a damned idiot.  While specific appointees might be Republican still, the government is Democrat, and even the Republicans are more than a little leery at the prospect of a Trump presidency.

The fix, as they put it, was in from day one.  The Dems were never going to consider alternatives to Clinton, and there’s not enough Republican momentum behind Trump to push them into doing something decisive on the issue.  Ergo, we have this horribly mismanaged nightmare of a scandal, but I think in all the partisan politics the fundamental issue has been lost.

Hillary Clinton considers herself to be above the law.

Every bit of evidence presented in this whole debacle has underscored that not only were her defenses for the server utterly specious, but in doing so revealed that motivating factor, the reason why she decided to go with a private system.

“Convenience” is a crock of shit when you have a mess of handlers and hangers-on, and work with multiple devices anyway.  “Ignorance” is equally ridiculous; Clinton has had run-ins with the press before.  During the Whitewater scandal, after all, she did supposedly remark: “I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our personal papers. We are the president.”

That right there should be all the explanation most people need as to her motives in this instance: Shielding herself from the Freedom of Information Act.

So this way she gets to decide what constitutes relevant among her emails, and in most circumstances she might well have gotten away with it, had she not decided to run for president.

But she did.

And make no mistake that Trump will be dredging all her skeletons out of the closet for this one.

Which is part of why I find her response so… clumsy.  I mean, she had to know this was coming.  It’s obvious that she intended to run for President in 2016, particularly in light of her Secretary of State appointment, padding her resume for this year’s spectacle.

So while the use of the private server might be easily explicable, the decision to lie about the legality of it, to lie about her usage of it, to lie about what emails she turned over, and to erase the ones she didn’t…

I cannot comprehend.

Unless, of course, she’s hiding something.  Unless there’s something so incredibly incriminating that the political fallout from this scandal was preferable to the potential fallout of the one she managed to avoid.

And that will almost certainly be the line that Trump uses come November.  He’ll hammer her over that uncertainty, drag her through the morass of “what if” and “just maybe”, and her chances of coming out of it clean are practically nonexistent.

Now, I can predict the inevitable responses from the left side of my readership on this one: “But think of the alternative!”

Y’know, I do.  And while Trump will likely be disastrous in some ways, there’s little evidence that Hillary won’t be just as disastrous in others.  Radicals like to prattle on about how “millions will die if Trump gets elected”, with zero evidence as to exactly how that’s going to happen, but they generally gloss over the fact that Hillary is about as hawkish as any Neocon, has voted or pushed for just about every “intervention” we’ve had for the last sixteen years, and clearly intends to continue some of Obama’s frankly counter-productive policies of drone assassination.

By this logic, while you can make the assertion that Trump might kill millions, you can just as easily make the assertion that Hillary has killed millions.

But that’s besides the point.

Because I don’t believe in the false dichotomy of our political system.  I don’t think that voting for a third party is throwing my vote away, because the only reason people think that is because the Republicans and Democrats have rigged the system.  They’ve colluded in ways that would utterly shock their partisans to ensure that they control the political process to the greatest degree possible.

Much like the issue of money influencing politics, it only happens because we allow it to.  We could elect a Perot, a Nader, or this year Gary Johnson, if we so chose. We could pick someone from outside the system that is clearly dysfunctional, or elect a candidate based on the strength of their character and positions, not the wealth of their backers or out of unreasoning fear of the opposition.

We could do just about anything we want.

And I see no reason to allow the short-sightedness of others to influence my vote.

Advertisements