Tuesday, May 10, 2016

The double standard that is Hillary Clinton

At least one person has accused me of using Republican talking points as subject matter of my blog. I don't discriminate. I use whatever I can find, check the facts and put it here. It doesn't matter if the article is about Hillary or Bernie. The point is, if Hillary can't provide an adequate response to criticism from within and without, she's not going to make it in the general election.

I do have a bias and I'm definitely supporting Bernie Sanders. All the way to the convention. I believe that he's the best candidate to run against Trump. I also believe that the media is holding Hillary to a different standard than with Bernie. I also believe that Hillary and more than a few of her supporters feel somewhat entitled to a different standard, a lower bar.

Here is where I got the idea about the double standard being held against both candidates, Hillary and Bernie. First there is the email scandal that is still unfolding. Yes, I know. You may have read the article in the Washington Post that says she's going to be exonerated. Do a search for "Hillary exonerated". Go incognito if you're using Chrome to avoid the filter bubble. If she were truly going to be exonerated or had been already, that would have been plastered everywhere for all of us to see. So far, I just see a few links, many of them stale, suggesting that she will in the end be exonerated.

WaPo's article is probably misinformation, at best, wishful thinking. Here's an article that really digs deep into the issue and provides ample evidence that Hillary Clinton is very likely to be indicted for her handling of government information. While Waldman's article in the Washington Post talks about intent, some of the laws that Hillary could have violated have nothing to do with intent. Rather, they only concern negligence. Negligence comes without intent and intent need not be proven.

Now here's the double standard, according to retired Army Col. Larry Mrozinski, who served almost four years as a ­senior military adviser and security manager in the State Department under both Clinton and Condoleezza Rice:
Anybody else would have already lost their security clearance and be subjected to an espionage investigation,” Mrozinski added. “But apparently a different standard exists for Mrs. Clinton."
Somehow, Clinton got a pass for not following protocol, for failing to take every opportunity afforded to her to correct the problems or even prevent them. This is a person who was determined to use her own private email server, domain and email account for all official business, even when she was offered a chance to use a secured email account provided to her by the government. Apparently, she was partly motivated by a desire to avoid scrutiny under the Freedom of Information Act, a law which is part of the controversy.

Vice President Joe Biden has noted that Hillary Clinton is a little green to the debate on inequality. According to The Hill:
"I think that Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real. And he has credibility on that," Biden said Monday in an interview with CNN. 
Asked about the fact Hillary has spoken about the issue too, Biden replied, "It's relatively new for Hillary to talk about that."
So Hillary would have us believe that she's on board with the fight over income inequality? Not if you ask the State of Delaware. In case you didn't know, the wealthy love incorporating in the State of Delaware for their very corporate friendly courts and laws. We might even be surprised to learn Clinton and Trump both have companies incorporated in Delaware, a made-in-America tax haven.

Clinton created this entity just a few days after stepping down as Secretary of State. When the Guardian researched that story with the Clinton camp, here is what they learned:
A spokesman for Clinton said: “ZFS was set up when Secretary Clinton left the State Department as an entity to manage her book and speaking income. No federal, state, or local taxes were saved by the Clintons as a result of this structure.”
If you didn't save any money in taxes, why bother? Oh, I get it. Privacy. Just like with her personal email server. Would she get a pass as president? Probably not.

There is one last example that doesn't pertain to Clinton personally. This one actually pertains to how her campaign is handling information and coordinating such handling with a state Democratic Party. Turns out that there was a counting error in Colorado. We know that Bernie won Colorado, but there was a controversy over the number of votes he won. The Denver Post broke the news, but the Clinton campaign knew about the error days before the Sanders Campaign learned about it. In fact, the Sanders campaign learned about it from the Denver Post, not the Colorado Democratic Party:
Bernie Sanders won one more delegate in Colorado than first projected after the Colorado Democratic Party admitted this week that it misreported the March 1 caucus results from 10 precinct locations.
The party discovered the discrepancy a week after the caucus but did not correct the public record.
Hillary Clinton's campaign discussed the error with state party officials last week, but the Sanders campaign apparently didn't realize the issue until being informed Monday evening by The Denver Post.
How long would state party officials have withheld that information from the Sanders campaign without some prodding from the Denver Post? Why is Clinton getting preferential treatment? I thought she was the presumptive nominee, but apparently, she needed a little help from the Colorado Democratic Party to figure this out.

It's time we held both candidates to the same high standard for the entire race. I wonder if Clinton can handle that. I know Sanders can.
Post a Comment