hillary_clinton_testimony_to_house_select_committee_on_benghaziWell. At least the Nobel Committee won’t be embarrassed–if one assumes such is possible–by giving Hillary Clinton the Nobel Prize for most frequent flier miles. One must be thankful for small things these days.

Let us then, gentle readers, get to an important issue: Should Hillary Clinton be pardoned? Or more to the point, should she, all her minions, and everyone that may have had a hand in violating federal law and giving away our most important secrets to our enemies, be competently investigated? Should a professional, non-political determination be made as to which laws, if any, were violated, and whether charges–taking into account the intent of Congress in writing those laws, and all Americans previously prosecuted for such violations–are warranted?

Uh, yes.

hillary-onopoly

But just to be fair, let’s review the issues involved, including the case for and against such a process.

The Case Against The Rule Of Law: What’s that you say? What do I mean “the case against the rule of law?” If the rule of law exists, Hillary Clinton must be fairly, professionally investigated precisely because she was the Democrat nominee, because she is rich and was powerful, and because she has apparently benefited from those perks. Some 70% of Americans believe she was unfairly pseudo-cleared of criminal wrong doing for political reasons, because, well, because she was unfairly pseudo-cleared of criminal wrong doing for political reasons. Those same Americans have no doubt that had they done a single count of the violations of federal law she is credibly known to have done, their non-protected-victim-class rear ends would be cooling on a metal bunk in Leavenworth, Kansas.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s continue. Americans have been through a more than a year long, bruising, emotional, horrific, unprecedented presidential campaign. Hillary Clinton is an important national figure. She was the First Lady of Arkansas. She served on the Watergate staff (OK, so she was fired for being dishonest, but she served at least a little while). She was the First Lady of the United States. She was a Senator from New York. She was the Secretary of State, and she was the Democrat nominee for President. She’s important and has done important things and traveled a great many miles for America while accomplishing nothing anyone, including she, can relate. To investigate and possibly, prosecute, Hillary Clinton, would take years, millions of dollars, and drag a long-suffering America through more years of pain and suffering. After all, Hillary is a grandmother, and who wants to put grandma in jail? Better to pardon her–and all of her minions who were only doing what they were told to do (that worked at Nuremberg, didn’t it?)–to spare the nation such agony, and to allow us all to move forward, moving forward being government’s most sacred obligation. As FBI Director James Comey said, Hillary didn’t criminally intend to violate the law hundreds, perhaps thousands of times. What good would it do the country to jail Hillary and forty or fifty of her minions?

Besides, prosecuting Clinton, particularly, would seem–to Democrats and criminals everywhere–like an act of political revenge, perhaps touching off a never-ending political war where every new presidential administration jails its political enemies.

Does that pretty much cover it, gentle readers? Please, If I’ve left out any compelling arguments for overthrowing the rule of law, by all means add your comments.

credit: washingtontimes.com

credit: washingtontimes.com

The Case For The Rule Of Law: One of the unique things about America is the rule of law applies to all men, famous and obscure, rich and poor—or at least it’s supposed to so apply. Police officers understand they cannot do their jobs, they cannot survive, without voluntary citizen compliance. If most citizens are not willing to obey most laws most of the time, the police are dead, and superfluous. Citizens are willing to obey most laws most of the time because of the rule of law. They believe they will be afforded due process under the law, their rights will be recognized, observed, and protected, and the law applies to everyone equally. No man is above the law. This is also why they are willing to serve on juries, to join the military, to vote, and to live peaceably with others.

To be sure, people occasionally expect some people to get a little leeway on this or that. Perhaps a policeman’s wife gets a warning where someone else might get a speeding ticket. Perhaps a local politician gets a warning rather than being cited for disturbing the peace at a loud party at his home. People aren’t necessarily happy about that sort of thing, but they understand it, and don’t worry much about it. Such things are not, after all, felonies, dangerous crimes where life or limb are in jeopardy. They’re not matters of national security.

People are also willing to be merciful where mercy might be due. They understand some people make mistakes, do things under stress they wouldn’t normally do. They understand some violations of law really don’t harm others, and based on the past good behavior or lack of a record on the part of violators, they may deserve a break. Such understandings, such expressions of mercy do not undermine the rule of law and the public’s confidence in it. On the contrary, they arguably strengthen it.

What is Hillary Clinton, and various of her assistants, accused of doing? Obstruction of justice: Knowing her e-mails were under congressional subpoena, she and her minions destroyed and concealed thousands, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands, of e-mails. Violation of secrecy statutes: There is no doubt Clinton established a private, unauthorized e-mail server and that server, and innumerable handheld devices belonging to her and others, carried hundreds, if not thousands of classified documents, including some bearing the most sensitive possible classifications. Violations of ethics and related statutes: The Clinton Foundation was run out of the State Department as a pay to play scheme to personally enrich the Clintons.  She sold her office for cash.

How do we know Mrs. Clinton and her minions violated the law? The FBI director made that plain, reciting chapter and verse on multiple felonies. In addition, the Clinton Foundation investigation is reportedly still ongoing, though few can possibly consider it free of political influence considering what we now know about Loretta Lynch and her Justice Department cronies trying to suppress all Clinton investigations. What is clear is that a competent, complete investigation of all of the Clinton’s potential crimes has not yet been done. There may well be hundreds, if not thousands, of felony counts chargeable to Mrs. Clinton, Bill Clinton, and many of their minions.

credit: youtube

credit: youtube

Consider too the fact that Mrs. Clinton established her private server before she took office, maintained it throughout her term, and did not turn over all documents stored on that server as required when she left. This goes strongly to proving criminal intent. She intended to use the State Department for her Clinton Foundation pay to play scheme and didn’t want any paper trail discoverable by anyone. We now know Barack Obama knew she had a private e-mail server and corresponded with her via that server, using an alias.

A particularly odious part of the scheme saw her selling 20% of America’s uranium to Russia. Russia! A nation that is seemingly striving to once again live the bad old days of the Soviet Union.

Equally important to consider are her many lies about her e-mails, told not only to the Congress and the American people, but likely to the FBI. Lying to an FBI agent is a federal crime in and of itself. Also telling are her several minions that took the Fifth, and who, like Mrs. Clinton, couldn’t remember virtually anything about anything they did while working for the Government. Quite the coincidence.  While juries are not supposed to draw any inferences from defendants taking the Fifth, we have no such restriction. We can draw the logical inference: if the truth becomes known, they’re going to jail.

Mrs. Clinton’s past also argues for investigation. Her long history of lies, shady dealings, concealment of documents, abuse of those assigned to serve her, improper accumulation of wealth, even theft of furnishings from the White House, does not speak to innocence and virtue.

Then there is the information reportedly found on Anthony Weiner’s laptop, which, according to at least one potentially reliable source, outlines a great deal of additional criminal activity, up to and including the rape of underage children. Even if this information turns out to be unfounded, this class of potential crimes demands competent, complete investigation.

The Democrat Party is ethically compromised. It was more than willing to support a woman—and her minions–whose crimes were not only obvious, but blatant. If justice is not done, that party is forever tainted. Democrats may well consider this a badge of honor, a virtual qualification for office. Judging by the torrent of rage and hatred poured out on Facebook and Twitter, moderation, rationality and tolerance are to be reserved only for the progressive elite, and not extended to anyone so irredeemable as to vote against Hillary Clinton.

Compromised too are the FBI and the Department of Justice. No one of good faith can trust them, yet trust in those two agencies is vital if Americans are to believe in the rule of law and our republican institutions. If America is to be one nation, indivisible, all Americans must know, as we have known until recently, that the rule of law applies to all. Director Comey’s bizarre contention that prosecution of Mrs. Clinton’s crimes requires criminal intent is nowhere found in the law, law that specifically omits intent as an element. If this is allowed to prevail, the law does not say what it means, nor does it mean what it says.

Ultimately, the argument against investigation comes down to the idea that people, particularly Democrats, running for high office somehow become immunized against prosecution for crimes, or at the least, that prosecution would somehow be against some unwritten tradition, or otherwise mean or unseemly.  Rather odd reasons not to prosecute felonies, particularly those that damage national security and put the lives of patriots at risk.

During my police days, I was painfully careful never to violate the law, because I fully expected if I did, I would receive not the slightest mercy. Because of my position, because of the powers loaned me by my fellow citizens, I accepted a higher burden of propriety than the average citizen. Hillary Clinton and her minions must be held to no lower standard, particularly because there is more than sufficient evidence to indicate they have committed innumerable serious crimes, crimes that would forever brand any other American, and change their lives–for the worst.

NewsweekLogo-1 [Converted]

And here we find a major problem. The last eight years have lowered American’s expectations of the lawfulness and ethics of our self-imagined elites—and the Democrat Party—to previously unimaginable levels. Most Americans now expect our federal office holders and institutions to be staffed with criminals and to be impossibly corrupt. They expect to be abused and unlawfully harassed by so-called public servants.  This impression of a once proud and trustworthy government has been a long time coming and is sadly, well earned. Not a few Republicans have played a significant part in living down to the expectations of the public.

Just as Democrats claim Republicans inspire violence, while virtually all of the political violence is on the Left, it is likely Democrats will, in the future, seek politicized revenge for the lawful investigation and prosecution of Democrat criminals, but the threat of unlawful acts can never be allowed to deter the rule of law.

The nation has been given a respite, a respite the establishment Republicans and pundits would rather not have had, content as they were to wallow in the cesspool of the Beltway. But a respite it is. It will, in the life of nations, be brief, and it must start with the restoration of the rule of law. There cannot be one law for unfortunate military members that made an unthinking mistake, and the same law ignored for powerful Democrats.

Today, Donald Trump is meeting with Barack Obama. Mr. Obama will, no doubt, lecture Mr. Trump on retaining Obamacare and the Iran Deal and every unconstitutional, lawless act he has committed and will commit before leaving office. If Mr. Trump is wise, he will nod thoughtfully, say a few nice things, and ignore every word.

Hillary Clinton must be investigated, and if found to have committed crimes, prosecuted, but that will not come to pass. Barack Obama will pardon her, and everyone around her that could possibly do him any harm. The list will be long. He will see his legacy falling down around his ears, and will not give a damn what he does to the country, and he will be likely to lecture us about his glory and virtue as he turns the rule of law on its head.  It’s always all about him.

The road to once again earning the trust of Americans will be long and exceedingly rough, but at least we now have a brief opportunity to begin the journey.

Advertisements