According
to the Washington Post, Secretary Clinton has concluded that
Trump is ‘dangerously incoherent,’ [and] ‘temperamentally unfit’ to be president.
I
agree. But he's not the only one who's unfit.
In a statement dated July 5, 2016, James
Comey, the head of the FBI, though recommended that no charges be
filed against her because “we did not find clear evidence
that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws
governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence
that they were extremely careless in their handling of very
sensitive, highly classified information.” But, said Mr.
Comey, “We are pleased … that no further action is
required. … We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”
As
the Secretary would put it, let's put this behind us and move on.
(Mr. Trump doesn't agree with Mr. Comey however. Citing the actions
taken against General David Petraeus – the filing of criminal
charges – for mishandling classified information, he concluded that
“the system is rigged.”)
Lack
of criminal intent is a very low bar to exoneration. If ignorance of
the law is no excuse for criminal behavior, the conduct of
“participants who know, or should know,” but who
lack criminal intent, should be viewed with even greater concern.
And when the perpetrator who takes such an action is a public
official and by doing so places at risk “seven email chains
concern[ing] matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special
Access Program level,” our country is placed at risk. And lying
about it – covering up – compounds the crime.
In
its lead editorial today, the Wall Street Journal notes that
Mrs. Clinton claimed that her email
was stored in a safe and secure manner, and not hacked. Mr. Comey
said “hostile actors” had accessed the private account[s]
of “people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from
her personal account.” Her personal email was known about and
“readily apparent.” ... it is possible that hostile actors gained
access gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account.
It
would be prudent to determine if the Secretary would have any
security clearance were she anyone else. I suspect it would be
denied her. And her “careless” behavior places us all at risk.
The
Secretary has urged that we “move on” from the discussion of her
email activities, and from the lack of action that her State
Department took during the difficulties in Benghazi. We should “put
them behind us” although they relate specifically to her job
performance as a member of the cabinet. They are recent events.
At
the same time she raises issues about the actions of Mr. Trump, a
private citizen rather than a government official, in the last
century – twenty or thirty years ago. We mustn't put that behind
us or move on from there. It is relevant and makes him unfit for
public office. Perhaps it does. Certainly when considered along
with his subsequent performance it seems that his presidency would be
an unhappy experience for our country. But the Secretary has already
demonstrated that her service as Commander-In-Chief would put
us all at risk.
All
that is left is prayer that delegates to the conventions rethink
their commitments and offer to the American people candidates who can
be trusted to govern us sanely and safely.
Johnson
and Weld might be able to fill the bill, but in this real and
dangerous world they're not going to win.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I know you agree, but you can leave comments anyway.