Optics of the Obama Endorsement

      No Comments on Optics of the Obama Endorsement

Rotten, Denmark, etc

Obama should not have endorsed Hillary Clinton. His decision has a negative impact on the rule of law in this country. The White House has confirmed that the FBI investigation into the e-mail servers is a criminal investigation.

The President of the United States has endorsed someone under criminal investigation by our government’s foremost investigative branch. That is a serious conflict of interest and has a chilling effect on the investigation. The FBI is a part of Justice, and Justice is a part of the executive.

The President claims this will not impact the investigation but that is hard to believe. If the FBI recommends an indictment, how will the Justice Department proceed when their boss has said Clinton should be president?

(Meanwhile the media is trying to trump up some charges against Trump and ignoring this scandal.)

The Clinton machine appears on paper to be rotten to the core. The e-mail scandals are but one aspect — what about the odd dealings from the State Department while those favored donated to the Clinton Foundation? The Foundation spends far less on actual charitable work than most charities — most goes to travel and salaries. The Clintons appear to have enriched themselves by using the office of the Secretary of State.

That is a conflict of interest as well.

Perhaps those thirty-thousand deleted e-mails weren’t all personal. Perhaps they were indicative of the sort of corrupt dealings going on. Either way, it was Obstruction for Hillary’s people to delete them before handing them over: a person is not allowed to decide what the FBI is interested in.

Take a moment and imagine, for example, that a child-porn suspect deleted thirty thousand images from his computer before handing it over to investigators. Would you believe they were all innocent “personal” images? Keep in mind — I said suspect. Not a convicted criminal.

No, you would think they were awful images, evidence — and the person would be slapped with an obstruction charge. It wouldn’t matter what the actual content was. Imagine sitting on a jury and hearing that someone deleted thirty thousand pieces of evidence.

Maybe Obama doesn’t care. Maybe this is a long con. Who knows?

Another problem with the endorsement is that now anything Obama said about Clinton is fair game. The man said a lot of awful things about her in 2008. Horrible things about her honesty, her legacy, her character.

“Obama says Trump is X, but of course, he’s campaigning for someone that he said was X in 2008. Don’t take our word for it — here’s the audio.”

Maybe he’ll do his campaigning and travel on personal time. But that’s unlikely — Rubio, McCain, and many other candidates and politicians were given a lot of grief for campaigning while working for the people, and collecting a salary for a job not being done. Shouldn’t Obama face the same scrutiny if he starts galavanting around the “57 states” to campaign?

Because that’s not his job.

Maybe he’ll be too distracted campaigning to do any further damage. That’d be great. Maybe, since he’s campaigning, Trump will lay into him for his scandals. The IRS scandal. The gun walking scandal. Benghazi (a twofer). The vacations. His racism (“typical white person”). His hatred of middle America (“cling to their guns or religion.”).

Maybe Trump will connect the dots between Obama’s desire to hurt the middle class and poor in order to make a 1% difference in the climate and Hillary’s desire to put people out of work. (“When I’m president… energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.” And “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of business.”)

Maybe a lot of things. But the endorsement stinks. Then again, Obama has clearly never cared about optics — he loves to politicize murders before the bodies are cold, after all.

Trump was correct yesterday. Hillary would be four more years of Obama. Because she was his Secretary of State, she has adopted many of his positions, and she’ll have her VP pick vetted and approved by the administration — in exchange for his support. That endorsement didn’t come free, and neither will the pardon or Justice quashing the investigation.

Obama will gets his fingers into the pie of the next administration one way or another.

We’ve had almost thirty years of Bush/Clinton/Obama doctrine. There’s not really a nickel’s worth of difference between them. W Bush may have lowered taxes, but he spent and spent. Clinton may have left a surplus, but he dicked around in the middle east and pissed people off (remember when he bombed a plant that made medicine, to distract from his sex scandals?).

Clinton would continue to oppose our rights, continue to push for an expansion of the surveillance state, and she would continue the free-trade deals that have destroyed manufacturing and jobs in this country. She would continue the middle east adventure that has cost us blood and treasure.

How many more American soldiers have to die in order to accomplish fuck-all out there?

Rmember, Clinton endorsed the Syria mis-adventure. Clinton voted for Iraq. Clinton supported ousting Gaddafi. In all three of those places, extremists have taken over. Extremists that are brutalizing women and children, attempting to genocide Christians, and destroying irreplaceable historical landmarks because they offend their twisted sensibilities.

Yeah, Pyramids are offensive but gang-raping children is a-okay with ISIS.

Can we survive as a single nation for four more years of that? I don’t think so.

Back to the first point, can we survive a third or more of the population being outraged that the rule of law no longer applies if you have the right last name?

Maybe people won’t be outraged. Because people tend to just shrug and let that go. But, maybe, they’ll recognize that we’re on the steps toward tyranny. Selective enforcement of the law is dangerous ground. It isn’t a slippery slope. It’s a cliff with spikes below.

Imagine a world where we all land on spikes. No thanks!