Last of three parts

This is the third and last article about Hillary Clinton and an assessment of her qualifications to be President of the United States.

The first two articles in this series concentrated on three major events in the political career of Ms. Clinton. They are called Travelgate, Whitewater, and Emailgate. Obviously, other events could be included, but these affairs offer enough information to assess Clinton, and I wish to give equal space to Trump and Clinton in these reports.

These events have been used to analyze two aspects of Hillary’s behavior: whether she broke the law, or whether she did not break the law but broke rules of ethics.

With the exception of you and me, everyone else on earth breaks the laws of their land and the ethics of their society. We humans also forgive. It is one of our most endearing traits, and one that helps hold together our social fabrics. An ethical “sin” once in a while is part of human nature, and is usually forgiven and even forgotten.

Besides, most of our ethics are not laws unto themselves. On occasion, when we humans decide that adherence to an ethical practice is vital to our society, we make it into a law, such as stealing or lying while under oath.

I bring these concepts up in this series because my research leads me to believe Hillary has not been truthful in her revelations about her participation in the Travelgate hirings and firings (as well as the misplacement of files about the event). She broke no laws, but it is my view that she misled the American public.

I have the same opinion about the Whitewater affair. When queried about Whitewater, both Bill and Hillary declare, We lost money on the investment! That is to say: Therefore, we must be innocent. Had it not been for Susan McDougal’s statement about why she did not testify in the case, I would have believed the Clintons. But it was at this time when they lost my trust.

In the situation of the private email server, I believe Hillary knew she was violating ethics and breaking the law. Her explanations simply defy logic. She did it anyway, as if she were above the law.

The Rule of Law

A viable republic cannot function if it does not adhere to the rule of law. No one should be exempted. I listened to the reasons why Gerald Ford gave a pardon to Richard Nixon: to avoid some ten years of trials and appeals, and the resultant strain on America. Poppycock, America’s fabric is stronger than what Ford believed

I conducted research for my book (The Nearly Perfect Storm: An American Financial and Social Failure) to discover that time-and-again, people who should have been sent to jail for their misdeeds ended up scot-free, with their company (no, the company shareholders) paying a fine and the public at large suffering.

When a politician or a judge is sent to jail for a crime, it is a sad event, but it proves that America is a land where the rule of law prevails. When a guilty party does not pay the price for breaking the law, the rule of law and society suffer, which often leads to other malfeasance. Is adhering to the rule of law the only viable way for a democracy to function properly? Yes, the only way.

Does the behavior of Hillary Clinton that has been described in these articles disqualify her from holding the office of United States President? Thus far, she has not been cited for breaking any laws, but I believe she broke not only rules but laws in the way she used a private email server. I also believe she violated ethics in the Travelgate and Whitewater episodes.

A couple weeks ago, my wife and I saw the movie “Florence Foster Jenkins,” starring Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant. Mr. Grant plays the role of an unsuccessful actor who is married to a rich woman (played by Meryl Streep). Hugh’s character spends most of his time promoting his wife’s singing career, and does little to advance his own.

One of his acquaintances asks him about his seemingly sad state. Hugh responds that he is content not to be a victim of the tyranny of ambition. As I was writing these pieces about Hillary Clinton, Mr. Grant’s quote came to mind.

A good case could be made that Hillary suffers from an over-reaching ambition. My wife is of the opinion that Ms. Clinton should have left Mr. Clinton long ago, but Hillary’s personal ambition dissuaded her from doing so.

Thus, after much reflection about the character of this woman, I cannot bring myself to support her candidacy. This statement is the same as my statement about Donald Trump.

Those of you who have read my analyses on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton know I am not a great fan of either candidate. This places me (and other Americans who hold the same belief) in a conundrum, because they are the only viable candidates left standing.

Nonetheless, whoever wins will have my best wishes for success in uniting what has become a fractious national political system. If Donald can somehow unify the Democrats and Republicans into a coalition that will unite the deeply divided elements of our society, he’s my man. If Hillary can do it, she’s my woman.

For Hillary, she has considerable experience and can handle a lot of situations on her own. For Donald, if he surrounds himself with an experienced and competent staff (and takes their advice), it could be that his deal-making talents can carry over to Capitol Hill. It is obvious our country needs people at the White House and Congress who will cut deals (compromise on occasion) and move the nation forward.

Let us hope either Donald or Hillary and the members of Congress keep in mind an old and wise observation:

The beauty of democracy is its ability to change.

The danger to democracy is assuming it cannot.

I thank you for sticking with me through six reports. Pro or con, I look forward to your thoughts.

• • •

Uyless Black is a prolific researcher and professional writer whose undergraduate degree is in psychology. He later obtained graduate degrees in computer systems as well as money and banking. He resides in Coeur d’Alene.