Keeping up with Hillary’s abuses of power, scandals and criminality could be a full-time job. They go back decades. In 1978 and 1979, there is the cattle futures trading scandal. The Whitewater scandal erupted in 1992-1993 and goes back to the 70s and 80s. These financial scandals culminate recently with the Clinton Foundation’s sales of influence and her secretive Wall Street speeches and commitments for extraordinary fees. CNN reporters, our moral arbiter on such matters, tell us “There is nothing illegal or unethical about former Secretaries of State earning money on the speaking circuit. And according to sources in the industry, there is nothing unusual about someone with the name value of Hillary Clinton being able to charge so much.” Washington is corrupt to the bone. The entire operation is a sty, and CNN is part of it.
Several e-mailers provide further thoughts on Hillary’s e-mails. One link is here. That one suggests that Clinton’s attack on Trump on national security grounds implicitly admits that her missing e-mails contained important government matters, not just yoga routines and Clinton Cash: The Unto... Best Price: $2.30 Buy New $9.99 (as of 03:10 EST - Details) wedding family plans that she has claimed. A second e-mailer makes much the same point: “It’s only espionage if state secrets are stolen, correct? If all those deleted e-mails were personal in nature, how could that be construed as espionage?” Under this reading of the controversy, if it’s espionage, then Hillary lied about the content. If she did not lie about the content, then the espionage charge is false, childish, unwarranted and immature.
A second point is this: “The server in question has been unplugged and offline for months; how could one ‘encourage espionage’ in the hack of the offline server? If it was hacked, it already occurred; one can’t be accused of inducing someone to do the impossible.” Trump asked for the Russians to “find” the missing e-mails, not collect them de novo.
Hillary Clinton’s larger abuses of power while in office were her vote to initiate the Iraq War and her role in initiating the war on Libya. These abuses were uses of power. They come with the turf, with the position. They are no better or worse than those of numerous other holders of the office. This doesn’t justify them or make them right. It doesn’t let Hillary off the ethical hook. She is a murderer and war criminal as are many other elected officials. Acting under the rubric of elected office doesn’t absolve anyone of committing crimes. Murder is murder whether done by a solitary person, a lynch mob, a death squad, a dictator or a democratically-elected clique of government officials. The American public should know that a vote for Hillary Clinton makes them complicit in supporting a murderer and approving the likely commission of new murders.
On the other side of these assertions and this debate, surely there will be CNN reporters to step forward and to instruct us that there is nothing illegal or unethical about elected officials committing murder in the name of the United States of America. They will tell us that the past, present and future homicides are justifiable as “national security” measures or justifiable by some other doctrine like “preemption” or “anticipatory self-defense” or because of a loosely-worded UN Resolution or because of the defense of Israel from a hostile neighbor. These Partners in Crime: The... Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $3.99 (as of 08:30 EST - Details) magically transform American-committed homicides, injuries and massive destruction of property into “self-defense”. And if there are not CNN reporters stepping up to defend murder, then there will be the national security establishment and a host of neocons.
One quick reply is that not a single preemptive military engagement of the U.S. passes the Caroline test: “The Caroline test is a 19th-century formulation of customary international law, reaffirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, which said that the necessity for preemptive self-defense must be ‘instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.’”
Saddam Hussein had already been bombed and cowed into submission and a condition of toothless weakness. He posed no immediate or instant or overwhelming threat to America. He had no means of attacking her. Neither did the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither did Gaddafi in Libya. Neither did any part of the former Yugoslavia. Neither does Assad in Syria, which is where Hillary Clinton is determined to act. Neither do Ukraine, Crimea or Donbass. In all these cases, there was not “no choice of means”. There were plenty of other possible choices. There was plenty of time for deliberation. None of these passed the Caroline test, a test that is virtually common sense. Either U.S. officials have taken leave of their senses, Hillary Clinton among them, or they have abandoned prior standards of lawfulness in international relations and reverted to savage behavior, making the world far more dangerous, or both. Voting for her is a vote for barbarism claiming to be responsible and morally right.