Far from a "minor" scandal, they demonstrate both her dishonesty and her incompetence . . . and thus her unfitness for the presidency

No, Washington Post, we should not stop talking about Hillary's e-mails

By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--September 12, 2016

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Subscribe | Email Us

The Washington Post has had it. In a way, I suppose it's hard to blame them. If your whole mission in life is to get Hillary elected president, the last thing you want is for people to keep talking about her schlock, homebrew e-mail server, her lies about it and the crimes she got away with concerning the glossly negligent mishandling of classified information. This is not helpful! How can you shamelessly pimp for a dishonest, sleazy criminal when people keep bringing up that she's a dishonest, sleazy criminal. The Post's proscribed remedy? Shut up, they explained:

JUDGING BY the amount of time NBC’s Matt Lauer spent pressing Hillary Clinton on her emails during Wednesday’s national security presidential forum, one would think that her homebrew server was one of the most important issues facing the country this election. It is not. There are a thousand other substantive issues — from China’s aggressive moves in the South China Sea to National Security Agency intelligence-gathering to military spending — that would have revealed more about what the candidates know and how they would govern. Instead, these did not even get mentioned in the first of 5½ precious prime-time hours the two candidates will share before Election Day, while emails took up a third of Ms. Clinton’s time. Sadly, Mr. Lauer’s widely panned handling of the candidate forum was not an aberration. Judging by polls showing that voters trust Mr. Trump more than Ms. Clinton, as well as other evidence, it reflects a common shorthand for this election articulated by NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick last week: “You have Donald Trump, who’s openly racist,” he said. Then, of Ms. Clinton: “I mean, we have a presidential candidate who’s deleted emails and done things illegally and is a presidential candidate. That doesn’t make sense to me, because if that was any other person, you’d be in prison.” In fact, Ms. Clinton’s emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently. Ironically, even as the email issue consumed so much precious airtime, several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story. First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.

This is so stupid. Remember, the Washington Post is the same newspaper that has spent the past four decades milking its take-down of Richard Nixon for the Watergate coverup. Now the Post is beside itself because no one believes the FBI, which by all appearances is in on the coverup of Hillary's crimes. Yes, Washington Post, there is massive evidence that the FBI was guilty of flagrant incompetence and/or the enabling of corruption. You, the supposedly brave truth-tellers, are on the verge of tears because some of us aren't willing to close our eyes and pretend this isn't happening. Imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had accepted the official line from the Nixon White House and castigated anyone who questioned their story. Yet that's exactly what they're doing here, and asking the rest of us to do. No thanks. The e-mail story is crucially important because it not only demonstrates Hillary's dishonesty and corruption, but her total incompetence as well. The e-mail story shows us how she sought out to evade public disclosure laws, how she used the Clinton Foundation to enable the State Department as a pay-to-play operation, how she relied on a political crony who had been banned from working for the government, how she completely ignored the warnings of State Department IT staff to stop doing what she was doing, and how she recklessly put classified information at risk of exposure. She was a terrible Secretary of State. She is a liar. She is a criminal. The e-mail scandal tells us all this. And this is exactly why the Washington Post wants us to stop talking about all of it. Sorry. You, Washington Post, were once the exposer of official government corruption. You are now its cheerleader and enabler. You'd better keep milking your past glory, because in your present pathetic state, it's all you've got left.

View Comments

Dan Calabrese——Bio and Archives

Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain

Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.