Absent a “November surprise,” this will be my last post about the 2016 Presidential race.
A friend shared a litany that pretty well sums up Donald Trump’s bona fides:
Donald Trump is facing multiple charges of defrauding students at Trump University, one case with a Court date set for November 28, 2016.
Donald Trump is facing a December 16, 2016 Court date to answer for claims he raped a 13 year old girl.
Donald Trump is the subject of multi-state investigations, uncovering fraud and self-dealing related to his Trump Foundation.
Donald Trump has a history of thousands of lawsuits against him over his business practices, in which he bankrupted small businesses and cheated employees.
Donald Trump has a long and well-documented history of harassing and disrespecting women.
But by all means, let’s talk about Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Despite the loose use of the word “scandal,” what Clinton continues to be criticized for was her use of a private server for non-classified official emails, a use inconsistent with State Department rules. Period. Not for leaking state secrets, not for dereliction of duty, not for any sort of malfeasance. (Ironically, James Comey is currently being criticized for precisely the same behavior–ignoring agency rules.) The reason Clinton’s server use was an issue was concern about the possibility of a security breach caused by either the use of that server to transmit classified material (which would have been illegal) or a successful hack; thanks to the FBI investigation, we now know no such breach occurred. (It is yet another irony that the State Department’s network has been hacked, and more than once.)
Let’s stipulate that–as Clinton herself has admitted– she shouldn’t have made that decision, and she shouldn’t have been defensive about it when it was discovered.
Hillary Clinton may be the most-investigated public servant ever, and despite having been the object of right-wing conspiracy theories for over thirty years, she has never been found to have violated any law. She has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, in the United States Senate and as Secretary of State and has been a tireless crusader for women and families.
To paraphrase P.J. O’Rourke, when she’s been wrong, she’s been wrong within normal parameters.
Voters in this election have a choice between a highly qualified woman who–being human–has made mistakes of judgment, and a thin-skinned narcissist with zero relevant experience or knowledge and a documented history of fraud, sexual assault, unscrupulous business practices and frightening volatility–a man with no discernible policy positions who has based his entire campaign on insults, ludicrous assertions of his own superiority, and not-so- thinly-veiled appeals to racism, xenophobia, misogyny and anti-Semitism.
There is no equivalence. This is not a “lesser of two evils” choice. One candidate is amply and demonstrably qualified; the other is simply unthinkable.
If Hillary Clinton had killed Vince Foster, she would still be the better choice.