No Criminal Intent, Merely Aggressive Aspiration plus Poor Judgement Aided by Casual Entitlement

"This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."
"To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."
FBI Director James Comey

President Obama campaigns for the first time for Hillary Clinton in Charlotte, N.C., on Tuesday. (Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

But decidedly not Hillary Clinton. There was no evidence, stated Mr. Comey, with a perfectly straight face, that Hillary Clinton one of two candidates for the presidency of the United States, knew that what she was engaged in doing might be against the law. No evidence that she had lied to federal investigators, he stated. "I've heard that a lot (a double standard for elites like Clinton). It's not rue, but I've heard it a lot." No concerns that someone in her exalted position didn't know better?

Consider it a conspiracy theory that there's anything to the rumours that skulduggery was involved when the presidential candidate's husband met with the Attorney General who just happened to reach the conclusion that the matter of the FBI investigation was concluded to her satisfaction as well, and no further action need now be taken. Hillary Clinton's smile was quite infectious reflecting the delight felt by her election team.

It is, indeed, most unfortunate that so many people simply have no trust either in Mr. Comey's exonerating statements, or presidential candidate Clinton's veracity, let alone sagacity and trustworthiness. Her poor choices and faulty judgement had huge consequences when she was acting in the capacity of Secretary of State, a role in which she seemed indefatigable, and no doubt resigned to performing well as a prelude to another try for the presidency.

She has not come out of that experience with a wholesome reputation for good judgement and reliable testimony. The very fact that her role as Secretary of State is now being questioned with respect to just how seriously she took her primary obligation to protect the state and state secrets, let alone those dependent on the wisdom of a statesman to use good intelligence in decision-making that would reflect well upon her position and the country, gives pause for thought.

And with that thought, a shudder of involuntary apprehension must surely surge through the brains of most voting Americans. Who now have an unenviable choice of a barn-storming charlatan whose bravado, bigotry and big mouth have appalled the rest of the world, and divided the voting public in the United States, and the alternative, a woman who has been around positions of power executing various high-profile roles and coming away from the experience with an overpowering stench of incompetence.

The veneer of professionalism and love of country and human justice plays well, or would, if much of the population hadn't detected that beneath that facade there lurks an ambitious egotist who believes she has 'earned' the entitlement now within her grasp. And it would not be, if the Republicans had a candidate who wasn't so cringe-worthy, someone with the calibre of resolute honesty and the capacity to govern acceptably, all qualities utterly lacking by the man who trumped other would-be Republican candidates.

No security breaches occurred, she averred in her defence when the matter of the unauthorized and unsecure email server arose. She simply required a single device to serve her communications as an extremely busy executive with voluminous communications to handle. Mr. Comey, however, pointed out the dozens of email chains ranging from top secret to confidential she cavalierly sent into the ether to be picked up by observant cyberspies.

Her failure that cost the lives of four Americans in the Benghazi fiasco cannot be overlooked. Her capacity to alter positions when the wind blows another way has not comforted those who are wedded to details. Her popularity, the trust in which so many people now see has failed, would sink her aspirations to the presidency if there was a half-decent candidate of the opposite party.

When Hillary's husband was president of the United States of America, even a Canadian was familiar with their moans about not having very much money. That was an unfortunate condition they have long since more than made up for. Profit from speaking engagements, from book publications, from their very own charitable organization of questionable organization, raking in huge sums from strange sources represent another matter with the taste of sulphur.

For a woman who calls herself a liberationist for female empowerment she is banking on the aid given her by the current President of the United States as well as a former President of the United States, both male mentors generously given to the quaint idea of handing power to a woman. A woman who has coped with the reality of a husband whose sexual escapades with other women can only have enraged her but whose passivity on that count does not reflect personal independence.

And this issue, that a change in administration is drawing ever closer, and Americans have the choice of a bumptious blowhard or an untrustworthy aspirant to make history as Barack Obama did, makes one think of the things that happen in a banana republic.