Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
For more than two years, we have discussed whether or not Donald Trump is fit to be President. Little attention has been paid to the same question regarding Hillary Clinton. (No, this is not another defense of Trump’s election.)
Clinton’s preferred policies, methods, and plans for power are beside the point. My concern is more fundamental. Democrats ran an unprosecuted felon for the highest office in the land — and that proposal went unchallenged.
The FBI publicly laid out the case against Hillary Clinton — felonious mismanagement of state secrets — and then usurped the authority of the Department of Justice to decline the “option” of prosecution. No insider knowledge is necessary to recognize her guilt. The details of her crime were public, as was the destruction of evidence.
A felon could have been President of the United States.
It’s bad enough that Democrats have established a habit of disputing electoral results. Let alone attempts to stall or undo their opponent’s presidency since his election.
They have also established, with consent from Republican leadership, that a presidential candidate may not be prosecuted and that this refusal to prosecute means crimes — even rising to treason — do not make a person ineligible for political office.
Has that ship sailed? Will the precedent influence similar decisions in the future? If the powers that be elevated another ineligible candidate to office, would we accept it with the same grumbling meekness with which we accepted Obamacare and other frauds?
Where does this rank among your concerns?