Hillary’s inconsequential emails… and telltale speeches

By Ben Tanosborn

Indications are that the federal probe investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she served as Secretary of State is winding down.  And so far, neither the FBI nor the prosecutorial staff at the Justice Department has come up with information that point to Hillary or her aides knowingly, or negligently, discussing classified secrets over her non-secure email system… contrary to the hopes and “political prayers” of every soul in the Republican Party.

Truth be said with logic and candor, Hillary faces little risk, if at all, of being prosecuted for using her private email system to conduct official business; and chances of her being found criminally liable approach the totally-unlikely.  To deny Hillary the brains to handle appropriately classified, or sensitive information that could be “classifiable,” borders on the absurd; accusations of this sort solely sprouting from the usual stinging sources of ultra-right talk radio… the likes of Russ Limbaugh, Glenn Beck et al.

The lack of an indictment by the Justice Department, or even the lack of a more venial sin – the improper handling of some materials, will surely exonerate Hillary Clinton and put an end to the political controversy; but it does not clear her from a most important indictment of all: one where we, the governed citizens, accuse her of poor judgment; not just Republicans, but Democrats and Independents as well.  Hillary’s glass of very questionable judgment seems to have filled to the rim with bad political decisions going back to her support of Husband Bill’s poor decisions on international trade and criminal justice, cupped by her military hawkishness and consent to invade Iraq.  And, as US Secretary of State, a far-from-bright decision to use her private server to conduct government business.  Many would say that her allowable glass of bad judgment has spilled over; and with it, her qualifications to take the helm from Barack Obama.

As inconsequential as the email issue might seem to most of us, judgment matters!

And if judgment matters, the text of Hillary Clinton’s speeches should be critical to the Democratic Party faithful when making up their minds whether they would want her to be the party’s nominee.  The DNC’s complicity in failing to denounce the speeches’ secrecy is an affront to the truth, showing the machinations of dirty politics.

Damn, Hillary!  Just tell us what you said in those pearly speeches that you gave folks at Goldman Sachs.  Are you afraid that the text in such pricey speeches might give telltales of deceit?  Could the transcripts be so damaging as to throw your campaign in disarray, and give Bernie the upper hand?  And perhaps, just perhaps, deny you and Bill a second tenancy at the White House?

We might suspect that the speeches only provided soothing assurances that Hillary’s future candidacy to the presidency, or her election, would not be detrimental to Wall Street’s interests, particularly those of Goldman Sachs.  What else can we deduce from the near $700,000 in emoluments given by a savvy investment firm!  It’s no secret to most that the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, fit center-right in the political spectrum; that’s where they are, and that’s where they have been throughout their political careers.  Bernie Sanders pushing Hillary a short distance to the left, during the pre-nomination period, will not create a problem for her, or concern for Goldman Sachs.

Ah!  But have Hillary and the establishment in the Democratic Party considered the possible future danger in keeping the text of these speeches hidden?  Wouldn’t it be a total catastrophe if Donald Trump was her Republican match in the general election?  Rest assured that all confidentiality in those speeches would cease, and he would make hay of her deceit; claiming her to be just another politician bought by money.

Meantime Gentleman Bernie keeps giving Hillary Clinton a pass; first by declaring the email issue as inconsequential; now by not forcefully, yes forcefully, demanding full disclosure of her speeches to the audiences at Goldman Sachs.

As much as we like to claim democracy in the US, we constantly find ways to circumvent it.  Take the superdelegate issue in the Democratic Party:  In Washington, my home state, where we just had caucuses on Saturday with an overwhelming victory by Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton (73 percent to 27 percent), none of the 17 superdelegates are pledged to Bernie, while two key ones, Sen. Patty Murray and Sen. Maria Cantwell, continue pledged to Hillary Clinton.  Shouldn’t they be pledged to Bernie or at the very least stay uncommitted until the party’s convention?  A funny democracy, ours!

Show More

Ben Tanosborn

Ben Tanosborn is an independent columnist. After completing graduate studies at UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles), BT set out for a career in international business that would take him to five continents, expose him to several cultures, and make him realize the importance for any and all Americans to become goodwill ambassadors for the United States. With his socio-political columns, BT hopes to bring to the forefront issues that are relevant to the national discussion in international affairs. BT resides in Vancouver, Washington (USA) where he operates a business consulting firm.

Related Articles

Back to top button

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker