Anatomy of a Hillary Clinton scandal

National Post ^ | August 27, 2016 | Charles Krauthammer

[rickmichaels]

WASHINGTON — Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals. In his first debate, he famously dismissed the email issue, it being beneath the dignity of a great revolutionary to deal in things so tawdry and straightforward.

Sanders failed to understand that Clinton scandals are sprawling, multilayered, complex things. They defy time and space. They grow and burrow.

The central problem with Hillary Clinton’s emails was not the classified material. It wasn’t the headline-making charge by the Federal Bureau of Investigation director of her extreme carelessness in handling it.

That’s a serious offence, to be sure, and could very well have been grounds for indictment. And it did damage her politically, exposing her sense of above-the-law entitlement and — in her dodges and prevarications, her parsing and evasions — demonstrating her arm’s-length relationship with the truth.

[Skepolitic]

“Bernie Sanders never understood the epic quality of the Clinton scandals.”

The guy may be crazy as a loon, but he’s really not that stupid. All along he knew he was going to lose. He just wanted to get out the commie and socialist vote for Hillary. He certainly wasn’t going to give credence to the very serious allegations against her. Instead, he instructed his followers to ignore them.

[blueunicorn6]

Hillary stealing money is bad enough.

Hillary selling secrets opens our children up to slaughter.

Why is that so hard for Democrats to understand?

[loveliberty2]

Krauthammer's analysis here is good, but there is another important aspect that Republicans, and, indeed, Krauthammer fails to analyze.

Doubtless, there are millions of seniors who are not computer literate in the sense that while they may use their computer to email their grandchildren and friends, they have no comprehension of the significance of distinguishing between "emails" and "servers," as it pertains to the intent to conceal and control access to her communications.

That explains the Clintons' and DNC insistence on identifying the debate as "about her 'emails'"--not about her "server."

The alphabet and DNC media are happy to oblige that bit of subterfuge, allowing millions of citizens to buy into the simplistic argument Hillary tried to pass off on voters.

For those, perhaps a cartoon-like illustration might describe her deliberate attempt to control access to her computer communications from her bosses, "the People," but to the President, the Congress, the FBI, and the Courts.

Now, why isn't that action, in itself, a sufficient description of "intent" for Comey?

[Flatus I. Maximus]

Because they don’t have children. They reproduce by stealing other people’s children, removing their brains, and turning them into liberals.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

“no quid pro quo”

But there doesn’t have to be one. According to the Constitution, Hillary gave up her right to accept money from a foreign government the day she became a Senator, and did not regain that right until she resigned as SoS. She could have regained that right merely by applying to Congress, which was dominated by Dems when she became SoS. Why didn’t she?

Simple - she did not want to reveal what she was planning, because it was too clearly out of line - even Democrat Congressmen and Senators would have balked at explaining the decision to OK it to their constituents. She is in violation of the Constitution even if she was actually running a charity, because she never asked for, never got, congressional permission to accept foreign government money.