It seems that this election cycle we can chose between dangerous and sleazy verses sleazy and dangerous. Wonderful. Let’s begin with dangerous and sleazy, Hillary Clinton.
Although to be fair, she would never have gone to jail. She would have plead guilty and paid a fine, if she was not running for president. I will not comment on the current email crisis as when I am writing this, (the day before publication), I really do not have enough data to know anything more than something odd is going on. But it seems clear that at the very least Clinton as Secretary of State was totally reckless in the handing of her email, some of it classified. I can actually see some of you saying in your mind, “no she wasn’t.” Let me ask you this: Did her emails become public because she did not take sufficient care in securing them? Yes, they did. This is almost a dictionary definition of reckless. It also seems clear that it was not legal. All it takes is one classified document to be mishandled for it to be a crime. It was a crime.
This is as sleazy as hell.
Blaming Russia for the revelation of these emails is curious on several levels. First there is no proof that Russian hackers were involved. Saying something does not make it so. I admit that Russia is a likely suspect. So is China. So are random hackers having nothing to do with any government. There is a element of desperation in the charge, even if it is true. For if a foreign power did get these emails, then not only has Clinton admitted to the truth of them, she has also admitted that here handling of her documents was so bad that this enabled a foreign power to access them.
This is as sleazy as hell.
While the foundation has done some good work, the Clinton foundation is corrupt. The overlap in the list of Clinton foundation donors with those having access to secretary Clinton is large. Even if there is no quid pro quo, this smells to high heaven.
Here is what Bob Woodward, of Watergate fame, had this to say about the foundation:
-- yes, it's a -- it’s corrupt. It's -- it’s a scandal. And she didn't answer your question at all. And she turned to embrace the good work that the Clinton Foundation has done. And she has a case there. But the mixing of speech fees, the Clinton Foundation, and actions by the State Department, which she ran, are all intertwined and it's corrupt. You know, I mean, you can't just say it's unsavory. But there's no formal investigation going on now, and there are outs that they have.
(I do not know what add you will see if you watch this, but I found it amusing that for me it was Goldman Sacs.)
This is as sleazy as hell.
Both Clintons received millions upon millions for giving speeches. Why would someone pay such a hefty fee for a speech? Access, plain and simple. It is also payment for services rendered, or services that will be rendered. That is how government service works. You work for the government and then you work for private industry, in the same field that you were supposed to have oversight on, nothing to see here, move along.
This is as sleazy as hell.
Podesta’s sister-in-law was a paid lobbyist for defense contractors. This was while Podesta worked at the State Department as a Clinton associate. This is probably legal, but, ...
This is as sleazy as hell.
So in Clinton, you have the sleazy as hell candidate.
Next time I will talk about Clinton, the dangerous as hell candidate.