Earlier today, on social media, I mentioned a New York Post editorial that pointed out the curious alignment of massive speaking fees for the Clinton family and wealthy parties who had business before Hillary Clinton’s state department. We’re not lacking for such things, but this would be a great entry for the GOP party game, “What if a Republican had done this?”
Putting aside the regular issues of partisan preferences and media bias — or at least letting them blur a little in order to focus in on a particular observation — Clinton is fascinating because of the position in which she places the American electorate. Bill Whittle’s latest “Afterburner” video looking ahead to 2016 touches no the topic and is worth the few minutes of your time. As Whittle points out, applying U.S. Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071 even to that which is so undeniable that even the New York Times has reported as potentially rule-breaking actions, a very strong case should be made that Clinton should be prosecuted, removed from office (if holding one), and banned from every holding office again.
In short, this is serious stuff. Yet, the Democrat Party, far from running from Clinton, appears unwilling or unable to produce a feasible alternative for its voters to consider. Meanwhile — and this is the part that really strikes me — many on the other side see Clinton in exactly the terms that Whittle uses:
The question for 2016 is: Will her friends in the media be able to continue to cover this up, and more importantly, what will Obama’s Justice Department do when the FBI… finally brings in its bulging case of evidence against Hillary Clinton? Because, you see, we no longer live in a nation of laws. If we did, this woman wouldn’t be running for office; she’d be running for Mexico. Will Obama deign to order his attorney general lapdog to prosecute, or will he, with the wave of an imperial hand simply let her walk?
Well, there’s arguments to be made both ways, but if she does walk, and if she is elected, she will enter the office of the presidency as the most corrupt, lawless, mean-spirited, creature ever to crawl out of a too-far-away toilet, and her custom-made Oval Office rug had damn well better be made out of vinyl to be able to be washed off with a garden hose, and frequently.
Whittle goes on to prove that he’s not fond of Donald Trump, either (at least as a candidate for the presidency), but what’s striking is the possibility that the presumed candidate for one of the two major parties would enter her very first year, if she wins the office, with this level of opposition, founded in a sense that she is simply illegitimately holding it — a sense that reasonable people find to be founded in plain facts.
Of course, Clinton supporters have the escape hatch of saying that this is just politics, minimizing the extent of the sentiment as the rhetoric of fringe commentators and insinuating sexism among those who oppose her (the wife of a man who could just as legitimately be characterized as a sexual predator). The truly stunning thing is that, at least that I’ve seen, not a single person in Clinton’s party or on the left more generally has raised this sentiment as something that (oh, I don’t know) might at least justify a little consideration by way of reviewing other options, if not for the electoral benefit of the party, then for the good of the country.