Unethical Comment Threads: Slate’s Soulless, Cynical Hillary Enablers

The-Soulless

Hillary Clinton wiped her server clean of emails after a congressional committee had been established to investigate matters that she knew her e-mails related to and would be requested to investigate. She also made this decision after the Department of State belatedly asked her to return her e-mails for the public record as the law requires.

Destruction of documents after they have been requested by an official body authorized to do so is called spoliation. That’s intentional destruction of evidence to hide the truth: it can be illegal, and is always unethical. Moreover, spoliation supports the rebuttable presumption that the individual in charge  is attempting to cover up wrongdoing.  For an ex-government official to do this is damning; for a potential presidential candidate to do it is disqualifying…or should be, if the partisans of the party she belongs to have a shred of integrity, decency, civic responsibility or common sense.

Based on the comments on the Slate report on Clinton’s spoiliation, they may not have.

Slate isn’t the nutty leftist enclave that Salon is, but its readership is overwhelmingly Democratic, and the reaction to the story shows a group that is Machiavellian, cynical, and tolerant of lawlessness and dishonesty. They mock the idea that the intentional spoiliation matters or is worthy of criticism—“Hillary once did a load of laundry that mixed whites with colors” sneers one. They agree that the public won’t care, and that the episode will have no impact on Hillary’s election…“Yes, she shouldn’t have done it. No, it won’t have any bearing on the election.” They deride the idea that character matters in determining who will be the leader, exemplar and role model for the nation…“If the GOP tries to make this a character campaign, they’ll throw away whatever slim chance they have in ’16. You guys need to drop it and focus on issues.”

True to form and habit, the Clintonistas think character is irrelevant to leadership. Ethics too, of course.

How did such a large portion of the intelligent electorate become so warped and corrupted? These people are disgusting, and I’m very close to concluding that anyone who supports Clinton at this point is disgusting as well.

20 thoughts on “Unethical Comment Threads: Slate’s Soulless, Cynical Hillary Enablers

  1. Simple, they sold their principles out under Bill and have never bought them back. I am frankly ready to trade mine away before they completely lose their value.

  2. “How did such a large portion of the intelligent electorate become so warped and corrupted?”
    They were very carefully led to it over many steps and slides down the proverbial slippery slope.

    She correctly calculated that the blow back from what was in those emails would be worse than the blow back from deliberately deleting them.

  3. The Progressive movement has been gathering steam since FDR was elected. He rose to the occasion during World War II (sort of) after making the Depression worse, then died and left the country in the hands of a guy who made and sold HATS for a living. Been downhill ever since, with Obama being the logical next step after a Bill Clinton.

  4. For me and my Democratic friends (granted most are attorneys or government employees) this should disqualify her as President. But, I will admit that (almost to a one), everyone has told me that while they will not vote for her in a primary, they will vote for her against a Rand Paul or Ted Cruz in the main event. Because, as Jack and I have argued to death in this blog, most Democrats presume all politicians are loathsome criminals, so we tend to vote policy rather than deciding who is the least corrupt.

    I’ll also note that spoliation technically only occurs if there is an active litigation, anticipated litigation, or formal investigation. For me, the distinction here is irrelevant (I think her conduct was shameful if not criminal), but many (including Republicans) would argue that a Congressional summons does not a formal investigation make.

    Finally, the reason that the country isn’t up in arms over this issue is that few people know or understand that there is a problem with data preservation and co-mingling of data. I’ve taught dozens of CLEs on the topic to attorneys and corporate clients and I can tell you that there is a ton of education that still needs to happen.

    • If forced at gunpoint, I might well also vote for Hillary over Cruz, who is a doctrinaire radical, or Paul, who is a fool…more likely I would jump out a 20 story window or move to Madagascar. When faced with what I felt was an equally horrible choice in 1972, I didn’t vote. Unethical/crooked is better than unethical/incompetent. I may write a post on it.

      We have to educate the public on how bad Hillary’s conduct is, and then they can make up their minds with full knowledge.

      • Really? You’d vote for Hillary over Cruz? I’d rather have a radical doctrinaire who *could* prove competent than someone whose entire political career casts her as a sociopath (who is likely less competent than even her detractors would suspect).

        Hillary against an unknown quantity? The unknown wins, because I have an ethical obligation to vote against the kind of creature she is. Hillary against a tried and proven incompetent…that would be a tough choice. I’d probably just have to concede that America is broken at that point.

        • I understand the thinking, but I have seen the ravages of incompetence—like now. The US has had some great sociopath Presidents, and no great incompetent ones.

          It’s academic, anyway. Cruz is a non-starter, and ultimately Hillary will be as well, so I won’t have to face that Hobson’s choice.

  5. Jack, you’re too kind (or legally educated) about Hillary’s actions. I worked for a federally chartered Financial Institution. We had to keep emails for 7 years…and that was before the Feds took us over after the mortgage crisis. Once we were subject to the Fed’s controls, the IT guys (me, among them) had to ask permission to simply *move* a PC. Had we lost or destroyed Hard Drives or Servers the Feds wanted for their investigations, we could have and likely would have gone to jail. And we were just dealing with money, not with freakin’ NATIONAL SECURITY which could affect the safety of the ENTIRE NATION.

    Every one of Hillary’s actions from setting up her own server, to delivering requested emails in paper from (which have to be searched by hand, by humans reading each other individually rather than with software), to wiping the server speaks to one of two conclusions: she’s criminally stupid, or she’s just a criminal.

    Either conclusion should disqualify her from being a goddamned dog-catcher, much less President. “I put up with Bill’s shit for 50 years and I have a Vagina” is not reason enough to make her leader of the free world.

    • I’m not trying to be kind, I’m trying to restrain my entrenched dislike and distrust of this awful, awful woman to reach a fair conclusion. But nothing you say raises any disagreements with me.

      • My revised odds:

        50-50 she doesn’t run; 75-25 she doesn’t get the nomination if she runs; 90-10 she doesn’t win if she gets the nomination, provided the GOP doesn’t pick a complete bozo.

          • Mt guess, either Ted Cruz or Jeb Busch. Both COMPLETE bozo’s. Well, not necessarily Ted, but Cruz as President? Could not, I suppose, be as bad as Obama, but close. Just in another direction.

          • Jack, even with odds like those you state, you should be absolutely confident that T. Regina will be the 45th U.S. president. She has 218 electoral votes locked-up, right out of the starting gate – 225, if she wins Texas with Julian Castro as VP instead of Florida with Sen. Nelson (and she might win Florida with Castro, for a lock-up of 252). Kasich will help her win in Ohio; Pennsylvania and Illinois will be dependably blue. How could she possibly lose? The press will love making the 2016 POTUS contest into a horse race, but the truth is, the results are predetermined.

            • The 218 electoral votes locked up is hype. Hillary won’t pull in the young or minorities like Obama; the chances of her even getting a big edge in women isn’t a sure thing. She’s already made gaffe after gaffe, and more are on the way. Hillary is like Romney in that she can’t break the 50% poll barrier. The Left doesn’t trust her—she’s like a Democratic McCain. Relax, and watch….except I don’t see her getting nominated.

      • But the most scary thing is how naked the Left’s lust for power is. They are willing to sacrifice anyone (young women, especially, see the victims of Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton) and they will ignore any principles they once claimed to hold sacred as long as “their side” is in control.

        • I think among the rank and file of liberals, there are some who are honestly driven by a desire for the best for the most people. Beth, another commenter here, seems to be one of those. However, the “left”, and the Democratic Party more and more seems to be the property of the far-left, does seem to adhere to the idea that the “best” is for the plebes, I can do whatever I want. And the mantra seems to be “For their own good”, like they, somehow, are the only ones capable of deciding that.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.