Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Christian IssuesCrimeHistoryLegalOpinionPhilosophyPoliticsSteve's Columns

Hillary SKATES On Getting Charged for Emails — And O.J. Simpson is ‘Innocent’, Too

Quite a while back, I was speaking with a successful business executive who told me a story I’ve never forgotten: One of his best guys was an African-American fellow; smart, successful, a big producer for his company; a genuinely sharp fellow. At some point, the two of them got to discussing the O.J. Simpson trial and the black employee admitted he believed the former NFL superstar cum accused wife-killer was, in fact, innocent. “I never quite felt the same about him, after that,” the executive confessed to me, a slightly sad tone creeping into his voice.

Some might be appalled by his response, but I get it — because Orenthal James Simpson was undeniably, unquestionably, inescapably guilty of slaughtering two innocent human beings. No denying it: no objective person paying any attention to the unfolding of that epochal courtroom drama twenty-one years ago could arrive at any other conclusion. Period. Virtually everything about the facts of the case — virtually everything — thundered, “He did it!”
Not guilty? Anyone who lands on that verdict deserves to have his/her judgment, in general, mistrusted — at least a little.

Then there’s Casey Anthony. Charged with the murder of her two-year-old daughter, the single-mother endured a six-week trial in 2011 — then ended up walking free. Indications are overwhelming, I think, she committed the heinous deed; but, according to the jury, the prosecution failed to meet the majestic
strictures of America’s jurisprudential system, proving it “beyond a reasonable doubt”. And, perhaps so; but Casey Anthony innocent? Ri-i-i-i-ght.

Normal, clear-headed folks are permitted to settle on such skeptical conclusions. As Ann Coulter clarified a while back, the “reasonable doubt” baseline — and, I’d add, “innocent until proven guilty” — encompasses a legal standard; it determines a yea or nay on judicial sanctions. It doesn’t necessarily apply to people’s personal opinions.

Yes, the Scriptures remind us that “love believes all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). Giving others the benefit of the doubt can be a redeeming quality. The same book, however, confirms there are times to beware the deceptions of the wicked (Proverbs 14: 15; 26:25). Calling out manifest frauds isn’t dishonorable; actually, it’s prudently engaging one’s eyes, ears and mind.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. This past week, FBI director James Comey befuddlingly declared he believed “no reasonable prosecutor would bring … a case” against the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for mishandling classified information and State Department business via her personal email servers. Attorney General Loretta Lynch followed suit a day later, ratifying Comey’s recommendation and officially announcing no charges would be brought against Clinton. Even so, the Bureau’s top cop, in the measured but skewering preamble that preceded his flummoxing concluding statement, and in his follow-up appearance before the House Oversight Committee two days later, essentially conceded the former Secretary of State/New York Senator/First-Lady conducted herself abominably — “extreme carelessness” was his phrase of choice — imperiled national security, and lied, lied, lied about it when uncovered doing so.

Celina Durgin, in a July 8 NRO piece, chronicles how Comey “detailed the findings of the FBI investigation into Clinton’s private server — disproving several of eight major lies she has told multiple times”. The Associated Press (!) flatly announces, “Key assertions by Hillary Clinton in defense of her email practices have collapsed under FBI scrutiny.” ABC’s Brian Ross (!!) describes Comey’s recitation as “an indictment without a criminal charge.”

Hillary, innocent? Perhaps legally “not guilty” — but voters can now determine whether they ought to plunk into the Oval Office someone with her track record. Not only should her scarlet, email-debacle culpability be factored into their November decision — it would be dizzyingly irresponsible to disregard it; electoral malfeasance of the highest order.

Most sentient onlookers understand from the torrent of scandals that have hounded Hillary and her no-account husband nearly their entire adult lives — and by their vile reactions to those controversies — that this is a couple of cartoonishly corrupt dimension; a pair that, were they TV-soap-opera figures, would be mocked as overwritten, J.R.-Ewing-ish, you-gotta-be-kidding-me villains.

Of course she lawlessly maintained private email servers for forbidden government use. Of course she stonewalled inquiries into the situation. Of course she dissembled, obfuscated, LIED about it. There’s no doubt.

Comey’s head-scratcher of a dismissal of Hillary’s juristic comeuppance changes none of that. Whatever his motives — Does the Clinton mafia have something on the FBI Chief? Did he brain-rattlingly bang his noggin right before the big announcement? Was he intimidated by notions of becoming the wild card which finally torpedoed Queen Hillary’s White House aspirations? — whatever the explanation, Comey’s clangingly discordant presentation, excoriating her as a slippery, world-record incompetent somehow unworthy of formal penalties, diminishes none of her conspicuous liability.

Bet on it, these facts will leave unruffled the moon-eyed members of the Clinton Cult. Mesmerized, groupie excuse-makers will smugly decree closed any further discussion over “Hillary’s email”. Observers should be prepared for huffy, pre-programmed shrieking-points — “Comey said no criminal charges!!” — at every peep about Hillary’s spectacular, national-security-threatening venality. Watch for proposals that Catholic churches across the land be rechristened for “St. Hillary”. That her New York state “hometown” honor her with a freshly erected statue, inscribed: “Our Lady of Chappaqua”.

Still, Hillary’s in-your-face egregiousness stands. Perhaps it’ll weigh on the hearts of those not already bewitched by her.

O.J. ultimately wound up in jail – on other charges, admittedly, but supplying a kind of rough justice, nonetheless. In an instructive coincidence, the same day as Hillary’s Justice Department “acquittal”, South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius was sentenced to prison for the 2013 murder of his girlfriend. A meager six-year term, true; hardly sufficient; but it is something for those hankering after justice, if only served in scraps. And Casey Anthony? Well, we’re still waiting on that one, aren’t we?

How repugnant is Hillary Clinton? How repugnant this newest entry in the cloacal annals of Clinton corruption? So much so, the prospect of her and her scoundrel husband’s re-occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has driven multitudes of otherwise sensible Americans to adjudge Donald Trump a suitable alternative.

Yet another reason for voters to peg this woebegone, DC-level Boris and Natasha a greasy stain on the nation’s record. And to insist there must be a righteous God overseeing all of it – One who guarantees that, should every means of mortal redress on this temporal plane falter, a calling to account does await everyone in the age to come. Bill and Hillary Clinton, included.

photo credit: Modified from: O.J. Simpson via photopin (license); Marc Levi; and photo credit: Hillary Clinton via photopin (license); Gage Skidmore

Share if you agree Hillary Cinton’s legal exoneration does not clear her of obvious guilt in her email scandal.

Steve Pauwels

Steve Pauwels is pastor of Church of the King, Londonderry, NH and host of Striker Radio with Steve Pauwels on the Red State Talk Radio Network. He's also husband to the lovely Maureen and proud father of three fine sons: Mike, Sam and Jake.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *