The Latest News

A few tidbits about what's going on now.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's a lot going around about whether the Russians were behind the WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and its actions in favor of Clinton over Sanders. The charge has been made that the leaks are helpful to Trump and that is the goal of the Russians.

Except for some Sanders supporters, few are discussing the veracity of the contents. In a nation that promotes fair play and “transparency,” little attention is being paid to the efforts of the DNC to sabotage Sanders's candidacy and its campaign to hide their actions. The fact that what happened was revealed is the only honorable part of the story – transparency was restored, and the conspiracy was made public. The story is not that the e-mails were made public, but that the conspiracy existed.

I'm not suggesting that hacking is a legitimate tool, or that the Russian government may not have been involved. I really don't know if Trump is their preference or if he will benefit from the leaks. And I don't care. My view of the two major party candidates parallels Secretary Kissinger's comments in 1980 on the Iran-Iraq war: It's a pity both sides can't lose. (More on that tomorrow.)

But if there had been no conspiracy – if the Democratic Party had acted in a more democratic way – there would have been no messages to hide and none to reveal. And America would have been the better for it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There have been reports that Donald Trump, Jr. will be running for the New York City mayor's office. They're based on his speech at the Republican convention last week.

This morning I heard on the radio that Anthony Weiner had a lot to say about this possibility. He would oppose such a move. I'd come out of retirement just to beat him like a rented mule. And, quoting his father, he also said We like to keep all our options open. One wonders what former Representative Weiner would use to beat Trump, and what else might be kept open by him.

But such a discussion is out of character for me (please accept my apology) and I leave it to the late night TV hosts to review the issues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Having donned the glass slippers – the ruby slippers as well – former Secretary Clinton declared that the glass ceiling was at last cracked. In fact it was actually broken. That's what happens when you throw stones.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More is going on, but focusing on the news is depressing. (Whatever the alternatives) I have better things to do.

Equal Time

Last week I wrote about Donald Trump, concluding that he was not fit to be president. So today I'll comment on the other major party candidate. I made two mistakes last week and I'll try not to repeat them. First of all, I waited for his acceptance speech to make my judgment, but all that did was to give him some extra time to smooth out the rough edges. He didn't, but even if he had accomplished the rhetorical feat, it wouldn't have changed his previous record. In addition, I saved my conclusion for the end, as I was instructed to do by a high school English teacher. It's good advice to let the strength of the arguments make the conclusion inevitable, but WYSIWYG, “truth in advertising” and similar issues mean that I should tell you my view, rather than put you in the position of drawing your own conclusions. After all, you may make a mistake. If my arguments are not powerful enough to lead you to the Truth, I don't want you to draw the wrong conclusion.

To reveal the punch line first, then, the former Secretary of State is not fit to be president either. In fact, she wasn't fit to be Secretary of State. Even her nomination is tainted by the leaks of e-mails demonstrating efforts to undermine the candidacy of Senator Sanders. (Lest I be misunderstood, it's my view that his nomination would be a disaster as bad as that of the Secretary of State.) It appears that the Democratic Party is somewhat less democratic than we have been led to believe. But we were foolish if we accepted the idea that either political party was really interested in us.

But, as William Claude Dukenfield said, “I digress.”

Our questions begin with Whitewater and Castle Grande, the business dealings in which she participated in the 1970s and 1980s. While despite her involvement, no charges were filed against her, according to Breitbart (and I leave it to the reader to evaluate the source),

In the mid-1980s, federal bank regulators started taking a closer look at Madison Guaranty [a bank she represented] and concluded that Castle Grande was a sham, a crime, and part of a pyramid scheme to enrich insiders and hide the S&L's disintegrating finances. According to the newly obtained document [an unredacted version of the “original Office of Independent Counsel (OIC) memorandum in the Whitewater affair obtained by Judicial Watch.”], “Hillary Clinton and Webster Hubbell [an Arkansas businessman also involved in the “sham” deal] concealed their involvement in Castel Grande.”

Despite contrary documentary evidence, Ms. Clinton denied any involvement. “I don't believe I knew anything about any of these real estate parcels and projects.” Memory is a strange thing.

Similarly, when questioned about her own e-mail server and the transmission of secret documents on it, her defense was that she didn't know the documents were classified, and besides, those before her had done it too. It is troubling that someone with her security clearance could not recognize a sensitive document (some subsequently judged too secret to reveal in the report of the problem) and take the proper precautions, and that she wasn't aware that the practice was then illegal though it had not been so during the terms of her predecessors. In terms of both the Arkansas business dealings and the e-mail controversy it is worth remembering that President Nixon was almost impeached not for the Watergate break-in, but for trying to cover it up. Ms. Clinton worked hard to cover up her involvement in the two scandals.

Another concern relates to the Secretary's performance during the episode in Benghazi, Libya. During the entire period of its happening, the State Department took no action. What it might have done would possibly have failed, but it did nothing, so we'll never know if the deaths could have been avoided. And, at least initially, the Secretary blamed conservatives in the United States (who had produced an anti-Islamic video) for the whole affair, although based on e-mail she sent at the time she knew that wasn't true. Another cover-up.

Ms. Clinton would have us accept her judgment that these matters have already been discussed, and “it's time to move on” from them – they're past performance items that we should ignore when we evaluate her – while she raises questions about decades-old business practices of her opponent.

Her past performance raises questions about her judgment and her trustworthiness. This is not an example of “genderism.” (More on that term in “Mixed Grill” which will appear on October 23^rd.) She should not be elected president for her service in that office would put us all at risk. But that leaves us with unfit nominees from both the Democrats and the Republican parties. Where do I go from here?

I'll have more to say on that subject in my next essay.