politics-clintonIT MUST BE admitted that even many Democrats find the Clinton business with Platte River Networks and BleachBit a little suspicious. Particularly suspect is David Kendall’s and Cheryl Mills’s conference call with Platte after the preservation order and subpoena had been issued. Very fishy as well is Bill Clinton’s inappropriate meeting with Loretta Lynch. If we treat the Clinton controversy with the same level of skepticism that the mainstream media and Democrats are treating the Trump/Russia story, then we can easily construct a scenario where the Clintons obstructed justice and where they did so with the help of the Obama administration.

141003201134-48-bill-clinton-horizontal-large-galleryAgain when we approach the Clinton matter with the same level of distrust that is being applied to Trump, Comey’s role in the election process looks pretty suspect. Of course, some Democrats are spinning it as Comey trying to help Trump. In light of what we now know about Comey’s feelings for Trump, that scenario is hard to accept. Comey is no Trump supporter, and it is hard to see how he ever was one. After all, when Lynch was tainted by suspicion because of her meeting with Bill Clinton (as well as her generally looking too cozy with the Democrats), who else but Comey came out and cleared Clinton? As head of the FBI, Comey was one person nobody would suspect of obstructing justice since it was his job to carry it out. His motive for favoring Clinton need not have been partisan. Even during the election, all this controversy about Trump and the Russians was already swirling about behind the scenes and within the Obama administration. It might’ve scared Comey into Clinton’s corner. What motivated him to help her might have been as straightforward and simple as loyalty to the country.


What seems clear is that just about everybody admits that it was an extremely odd move for the head of the FBI to come out and shield Clinton from prosecution. Publicly, he did say some negative things about what Clinton did, but it served as window dressing to make the exoneration more believable and acceptable to the public. Not surprisingly, Democrats don’t focus on how Comey benefited Clinton. Instead, they make a stink about Comey’s actions in the days leading up to the election. But they forget that what transpired there was triggered not by Comey but by the Anthony Weiner laptop surfacing. By then, Comey had promised he would inform Congress of any developments. Without foreseeing the Weiner laptop, he had bound himself to a course of action that he was practically obligated to take.


Comey also had a choice to make: say something about the Weiner laptop before election day or stay silent. He may very well have calculated that if he stayed silent it would hurt Clinton if she won (which after all she was widely predicted to do). After her victory, it would have surfaced that Comey had withheld the Weiner information, and this might’ve triggered a huge scandal, much like the Russia controversy has dogged Trump. To keep from casting a cloud over Clinton’s victory, Comey might very well have calculated that speaking up before the election was the right thing to do if he wanted to help her. In any case, let’s not forget that Comey quickly came out and exonerated her yet again. If he had intended to hurt her, one would imagine him trying to keep the cloud of suspicion hanging over her through election day. To me, what looks highly irregular isn’t Comey’s confused and bumbling reaction to the unforeseen development of the Weiner laptop but rather his decision to exonerate Clinton in the first place, to declare case closed — despite things like Platte River Networks’s stonewalling.

It all looks very shady. But here’s the thing: we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. We don’t know what Kendall and Mills actually discussed with Platte. We don’t know what Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch talked about either. For all we know, Lynch’s version is accurate. We also don’t know what Comey’s motives were leading up to the election. Unfortunately, none of those considerations stops those against Clinton from jumping to conclusions just as people who are against Trump are jumping to similar conclusions. What I’m trying to say is that I think we need to stop reading into things and stick with what we know. When we come to things with nothing but suspicion, then we will tend to see only the worst. Trump and maybe Clinton will continue to be investigated. But both factions need to learn how to give the benefit of the doubt to the other. Otherwise, there is just going to be more bad blood between us, and that isn’t good for the country.

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s