Clinton and Trump: The Moral Universe of Liars

[EasyAce]

By Mona Charen
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435939/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-liars

As someone who believes that excessive partisanship and Balkanization are poisoning our politics, I
have tried to view Hillary Clinton as something other than the ghoul she is portrayed as in conservative circles.
No accusation against her is considered too outlandish to gain assent in some precincts of the right: Vince
Foster was murdered. Clinton covered up a cocaine-smuggling operation in Arkansas. She assassinated
Kathleen Willey’s cat.

It seems a waste of effort to conjure lurid theories about Hillary Clinton when the truth is thoroughly, totally
damning. Of course all politicians shade the truth to some degree and we’re not electing a pastor and all
that — but as a voter, one likes to believe that candidates are at least operating broadly within the same moral
universe as the rest of us. She isn’t — and neither is Donald Trump.

As the new report from the State Department’s Inspector General hammers home, Hillary Clinton endangered
U.S. secrets and then repeatedly lied about it. “Everything I did was permitted,” she has claimed. Actually,
while she was serving as secretary of state, the Department sent out an advisory over her signature to all
State Department employees warning them against transacting public business on private e-mails. Not clear
if the dateline of that cable was Chappaqua, N.Y. . . .

Clinton has maintained that classified material was never discussed on her bathroom server system. In March
2015, Clinton said, “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail.” But the State Department
itself has declined to release 22 Clinton e-mails because they were deemed secret. Having been trapped in a lie,
Mrs. Clinton has attempted to cloud the issue by criticizing the over-classification that afflicts government
departments. Maybe it does, but even matters that are not strictly top secret are sensitive when you are the
secretary of state.

This is where we enter the different moral universe. Of the more than 300 million Americans, how many would
be casual to the point of reckless about national-security information falling into the hands of our enemies?

I worked in the White House for Ronald Reagan and recall with special intensity the protocols that governed
handling secret materials. This was before the e-mail age. Classified documents were paper. They were kept in
a safe. They did not leave the grounds. You were careful to the point of reverence about classified materials. It
was a high honor to be entrusted with them.

Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to trouble herself about security. Why? Who knows? Perhaps she didn’t want
Freedom of Information requests to reveal that she was selling valuable American policies in return for contributions
to the Clinton Foundation, as alleged in Peter Schweizer’s new book Clinton Cash. Perhaps she feared that
congressional investigators would comb through her records in search of damaging revelations that would harm
her political chances (yes, the irony here is rich). Whatever the reason, she has demonstrated utter contempt
for the American people by endangering national security. When caught, she stares straight into your face and
lies. When old lies are exposed, she concocts new lies without shame.

Donald Trump has not yet had the opportunity to endanger American security. So far, he has merely been able
to cause tremors of panic among American allies and among those Americans who blanch at the thought of such
an unstable, emotionally stunted man with access to the nuclear codes. But he lies with as much as or greater
fluency than she. Trump deceives not just about petty matters — his polling numbers, how many books he’s
sold, whether his vodka or steak brand is still in business — but about serious matters as well. Thousands of
American Muslims were not celebrating in the streets on 9/11. Ford did not cancel plans for a factory in Mexico
in response to Trump criticism. Trump did not oppose the Iraq War pre-invasion. We are not “losing” $500
billion a year in trade with China. (Our trade deficit with China was $365 billion last year, and it’s not “losing”
— we are buying products.) Wisconsin’s “real” unemployment rate is not anywhere close to 20 percent.

American primary voters have left us with this excruciating choice. Both candidates fail to clear even the lowest
bar of basic political/personal decency, far less offering anything approaching responsible leadership.

With such a choice looming, and with six in ten voters expressing disgust with both candidates, an independent
run by Mitt Romney would be a lifeline. One could praise Romney in many ways, but I give you the times:
Romney is not a corrupt, despicable liar. If, in democracies, people get the government they deserve, at least
let there be a fighting chance for integrity.

— Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Copyright © 2016 Creators.com

Until she ended with her pitch for Mitt Romney, the lady had me.

[r9etb]

Until she ended with her pitch for Mitt Romney, the lady had me.

Ms. Charen has at least done us the service of trying to answer the question of whom she would propose as an alternative.

While Romney is not at all my favorite choice as a candidate, there is no doubt that the man would be light years better than either of the unmitigated bastards who are currently poised to compete for the job.

I would not hesitate to pull the lever for him as a 3rd-party candidate.

[EasyAce]

While Romney is not at all my favorite choice as a candidate, there is no doubt that the man would be light years better than either of the unmitigated bastards who are currently poised to compete for the job.

Which doesn't say much for Romney, calling him better than nothing. ;)

I'm biding my time. Right now, under my state's election rules, "none of the above" seems like the
most attractive (or at least the least disgusting) option . . .

[r9etb]

Which doesn't say much for Romney, calling him better than nothing. ;)

I'm biding my time. Right now, under my state's election rules, "none of the above" seems like the
most attractive (or at least the least disgusting) option . . .

In this case, he'd be a lot better than the alternative -- which I grant you is not saying much, in this case, since both Clinton and Trump are far less (worse, more negative) than "nothing."

It goes against my grain to not vote, especially in a presidential election -- I don't know that my conscience will allow me to do it this time around.

[EasyAce]

In this case, he'd be a lot better than the alternative -- which I grant you is not saying much, in this case, since both Clinton and Trump are far less (worse, more negative) than "nothing."

It goes against my grain to not vote, especially in a presidential election -- I don't know that my conscience will allow me to do it this time around.

If your state has the "none of the above option," and you decide the offerings are just too disgusting to merit
your vote, voting "none of the above" is casting a vote. And at least, whichever disgusting offering gets
elected, he or she won't have gotten there by your vote.

Donaldus Minimus versus Hilarious Rodent Clinton. A crank versus a crook. The house is burning and our
brilliant countrymenpersons have burped up a choice between arsonists for fighting the fire. Nice going,
gang . . .

[r9etb]

The house is burning and our
brilliant countrymenpersons have burped up a choice between arsonists for fighting the fire. Nice going,
gang . . .

That's a great way to put it.