Topic category: Elections - Politics, Polling, etc.
Hillary Clinton: Innocent of Wrongdoing or A National Security Risk?
Are Americans so short-sighted that they would overlook for partisan purposes the clear and convincing evidence of the most blatant, severe, and repeated national security violations by any high-ranking government official in the history of the United States?
To underscore Hillary Clinton’s gross indifference to email security that her four-year use of personal nonsecure email servers reflected, Donald Trump humorously suggested that Hillary’s 30,000+ deleted email messages might be retrieved from Russian servers. Based on that record of gross violations of federal law, Trump also noted that Clinton should be denied access to classified national security briefings during the campaign.
Trump's Russia remark was not intended to be taken seriously as we have no access to that information and would have to rely on the cooperation of Russia even if they had hacked into Clinton’s wide open servers. However, Trump's observation that Hilary Clinton should not have any future access to national security information is serious and deserving of consideration.
Concerning Trump's suggestion Russia may have Clinton's deleted emails, is there any real likelihood that Russia would cooperate by giving copies to the FBI?
In exchange for The Clinton Foundation receiving more than $145 million in contributions to make the deal, Putin got access to 20% of uranium ore that represents 50% of future uranium production in the United States.
What role did Hillary Clinton play in Russia's uranium coup?
Because uranium ore was involved, federal law requires that any such international transfer of future production rights to the ore must first be approved by the Secretary of State. Historically (and for obvious reasons) this type of transaction would not have been approved. But Secretary Clinton made an exception — one that enriched her personal assets considerably — and approved the deal.
It is not likely that Putin would disturb his cozy relationship with the Clintons or do anything to take down their corrupt “pay to play” operation, an operation he might use at any time in the future, either for more concessions or to blackmail the Clintons.
Remember that Clinton’s nonsecure servers over a period of four years had served up thousands of emails containing official government business, among which were documents that contained highly sensitive national security information with the very highest classification.
What has been the response from the “usual suspects” (Democrat operatives, many of which are part of the Democratic Party News Media — ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.)? Do any of these operatives express outrage at the gross violations of both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and national security laws?
No. Not a peep of concern. Trump is the real threat according to these stooges.
Instead, they pounce on Donald Trump for his tongue-in-cheek suggestion that perhaps Russian hackers could provide the FBI with the missing emails.
Following Clinton’s nomination and the conclusion of the Democratic Convention, Trump suggested that, because of her gross indifference to national security as revealed by FBI Director Comey, Clinton should be denied access to classified national security briefings that are standard procedure for Presidential nominees of both major political parties.
Feigning outrage, the “usual suspects” now claim Trump should be denied access to classified information contained in national security briefings during the campaign.
Putting this in perspective, on the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, an acknowledged serial liar who, according to the FBI, not only violated FOIA but also national security laws with impunity. On the other hand, we have a candidate who suggested Clinton should be treated as any other individual who had committed gross violations of national security during four years of government service.
The “usual suspects” find an equivalent threat to national security in these two individuals. Note that none of them defend Clinton. Instead, they just make the absurd claim that Trump is a threat to national security.
It is interesting that the hardcore Democratic Left is so obsessed with their alternate reality that they actually believe it.
The Left’s blinding hubris allowed them to walk right into a trap set, either deliberately or inadvertently, by Donald Trump. As Charles Krauthammer observed speaking of Trump’s suggestion that Russian servers might contain the deleted Clinton emails:
”… it was a clever thing to plant, because it is an issue. But I do think there was something about his reference to Russia that, whether planned or not, was extremely clever. I’m not the first to point out that it set a trap that the Clinton campaign fell right into… the Clinton campaign… said… [Trump] is inviting a foreign power to invade our national security.
”… [but] these are the e-mails she deleted because they were supposedly private; these were the ones that were supposedly not work-related; these are the ones where she discusses her yoga lessons and wedding planning. So if that is what was really in the 30,000 deleted e-mails, then there’s no national security to be involved at all.
”Whether or not he meant it seriously – it could have been sarcastic, it could have been sort of half-sarcastic as a way to plant the idea – the fact is that it leaves the Clinton campaign in a complete contradiction. If these are just private e-mails, then there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no espionage. There is no danger to national security that they will discover her yoga lesson schedule.”
It is hard to imagine thinking Americans ignoring the Clintons' long history of dishonesty and corruption and have any desire for either Clinton to have any influence over the future of this nation.
The sorry history of the Clintons and their disconnect from truth and reality brings to mind an old joke:
Bob Webster, a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.