WASHINGTON, June 1, 2016 — Hillary Clinton carries with her a 40-year legacy of corruption. It was born during the chaotic Watergate years, a time that then Democrat attorney Jerry Zeifman has said many times he should have, but he did not fire from her job with the House Judiciary Committee. When questioned why Zeifman stated, “She was a liar, completely unethical, dishonest, and conspired to violate the Constitution,” reported Downtrend.
Four decades later the former Secretary of State finds herself engulfed once again in a tangle of ethics and illegalities that threaten her presidential run. Yet astonishingly, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey, 71 percent of Democrats want Hillary to continue to run even if she is indicted.
Has the presidential bar for selecting presidential candidates for the Democrat party sunk so low that the party faithful would rather vote for a presidential candidate under, at the very least, strong suspicions over her behaviors to the worst, under indictment?
Even Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is beginning to warm to the notion that just maybe her “damn emails,” as he had called them during their first debate, might have political legs he can exploit. He has called attention to the recent, scathing report by the State Department’s inspector general (IG), which found Hillary and her staff had refused to comply with department rules or be interviewed on the email scandal.
Even though it might be a tad too late for Bernie to gain any meaningful momentum against Clinton, his millions of supporters are having second thoughts about backing her if Bernie does not win the delegate war, many claiming they will change parties for Trump, before voting for Clinton.
Fox News reported that even Sanders’ campaign manager has serious questions concerning Clinton’s viability as a candidate if an indictment comes down this summer. Huffington Post reports that Clinton’s support among nonwhite voters has “… dwindle to well under a third of what it was just a month ago.”
Why would any right thinking voter ever consider supporting a candidate with a 40-year resume filled with dodgy political decisions and faulty moral choices? It would be like letting a felon come into your house, calling in law enforcement and then having the police and the prosecutor inform you the criminal has a legal right to do it.
According to the Rasmussen Report, 65 percent of the poll respondents consider it likely that Clinton broke the law by sending and receiving e-mails containing classified information through a private e-mail server while serving as secretary of State. Of that number, 47 percent believe it is very likely that Hillary broke the law.
Remember how the former first lady of Arkansas managed to maneuver her way out of telling the truth about what really happened to the emails after she announced her run for the presidency? She told the media and the public that it was her legal right to dump tens of thousands of emails as she saw fit, and only turn over emails that she felt were official State Department business.
In addition, she repeatedly stated that she had received permission to use her private server for State Department business. That was her story and she was sticking to it.
Unfortunately for her, she is not Bill Clinton. She has not mastered her husband’s masterful tongue. When he infamously uttered “It depends upon what the definition of ‘is,’ is,” liberals, Democrats and independents gave him a temporary pass because his hairsplitting sounded believable to them even if it made no logical sense.
Hillary is also not President Obama who avoided the truth concerning the controversy over the talking points that his administration had initially crafted to describe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He angrily stated, “There is no there, there.”
Hillary is not Obama who lies with such practiced ease while maintaining his hold on his black and liberal voter bloc who are always at the ready to defend him and throw anyone else under the political bus. Clinton has given so many Benghazi and email server versions that even the FBI and its reported 150 plus agents examining her possible criminal email server and Clinton Foundation activities must be spinning at their desks trying to keep track.
The hour of judgment may be around the corner for Clinton. The aforementioned report by the State Department’s Inspector General (IG) was essentially a stinging indictment of Clinton’s ethics as Secretary of state. It completely rejects her contention she was in compliance with State Department rules that govern the handling of national security documents. The report further found she knowingly broke her own department rules by using her private e-mail server for official business including Top Secret discussions. In other words: she broke the rule of law.
The IG went even further to correct her year-long defense of her use of a private email server located in an insecure, non-government location. The State Department official demolished her claim that she had worked out an officially approved special arrangement to do so. That claim was not only rejected, but the inspector general stated in the report that if she had asked for permission, her request would have been denied.
Clinton, who is still expected to secure her party’s nomination this summer, should be very concerned that the Rasmussen poll has other disturbing findings that will make her campaign honchos nervous. First, 54 percent of all voters nationwide believe that the Justice Department should have an independent prosecutor examine the evidence to determine if criminal charges should be lodged against Clinton regarding the email server case. In addition, 40 percent of voters of all ages are less inclined to vote for Clinton because of the e-mail scandal.
Bottom line: if the FBI recommends indictment charges are considered Clinton’s coronation as her party’s nominee may be short-lived. But not to worry. Bernie Sanders is keeping his campaign organization fully charged just in case Hillary has to spend this fall in a courtroom, insisting, like President Richard Nixon, “I am not a crook!”