Will the real Hillary Clinton please stand up?
On one hand, we have political elites standing up and praising Hillary to High Heaven. On the other hand, we have the Director of the FBI almost painting a picture of a doddering grandmother who might ask her kids how to use “the google”. Well, which is it?
Obama started campaigning with Hillary just this week. (This was planned BEFORE the announcement by Loretta Lynch that no charges would be filed against Hillary.) While stumping for her, the President addressed the crowd.
“I’m here today because I believe in Hillary Clinton, and I want you to help elect her to be the next president of the United States of America.”
He went on to say, “There has never been any man or woman more qualified for this office than Hillary Clinton.” He is painting a picture of a super-competent Hillary, swooping in to save the day from..? Well..? The train wreck of his own Presidency, I suppose.
The very same week, we hear the testimony of the FBI director James Comey. Did Hillary do things wrong? Absolutely. Should she be charged for those things? No. She may have lacked malicious intent.
Well, he didn’t exonerate her entirely. When questioned by Trey Gowdy about Hillary’s actual statements, Comey had to acknowledge that her story was disproven again and again. Then he was asked to comment from his perspective as former Attorney General. He asked: “False exculpatory statements are used for what?”
Comey answered: “Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.”
Gowdy: “Exactly. Intent and and consciousness of guilt, right?”
Comey: “That is right.” (The conversation continued and Gowy continued building on that line of reasoning.)
At least part of Comey’s explanation is that Hillary is not “sophisticated enough” to understand the classified “(C)” markings on emails she had sent and received. Supposing we suspend disbelief long enough to take that explanation at face value, where does that leave us?
It leaves us with a choice between two options.
She can be the woman described by James Comey, or she can be the woman described by Barack Obama. She cannot be both.
If she is so ditzy that she cannot — after studying law, after a career in politics, after spending time as a New York Senator, and after serving as Secretary of State — understand the basic protocols of how to recognize and handle privileged information, she deserves to face — at minimum — some of the other sanctions suggested by Director James Comey — including the immediate revocation of her Security Clearance.
Then you are faced with the scenario of someone “too ditzy” to understand how to handle sensitive information being offered (by her party, at least) the one office privy to more classified information than any other post in the land. More than that, if she is as ditzy as claimed, should we entrust her with the Nuclear Launch Codes? (“Oops. I hit reply all.”)
The other (more plausible) option is that she is every bit as sleazy as her critics claim. Yes, she is cagey enough to understand things told to her she just holds the law in so much contempt, and has flaunted them so long that she no longer even feels shame when caught red handed.
She’s a Clinton, after all. Such unpleasantness can just “go away” with the right combination of levers, threats, and favors.
But what we simply CANNOT do is call her both a Machiavellian genius and a drooling moron. (Even if her path to the White House would require her supporters to believe both.)