Donald Trump’s mouth and Twitter account have been going a mile-a-minute; but, he’s probably trying to divert attention away from himself, and the things that many Americans are truly curious about.  In this post, I will address Trump’s current diversions du jourSecretary Clinton’s Email and the Clinton Foundation.  Subsequently, I will discuss what he might be trying to hide.

By now, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s problems of 20-25 years ago are old news.  Surely, they call attention to Secretary Clinton’s trustworthiness and judgement, especially with regard to her State Department Email; but, at least so far, hazardous stupidity is not a criminal offense.  As a Cabinet Secretary, however, she had ultimate responsibility, not only for the potential danger of the information within her immediate and personal care, but for that of the entire State Department.  And frankly, she doesn’t seem to be too embarrassed about the whole Email matter.

As FBI Director James Comey suggested, State as well as the overall Federal Government, needs to insure that security policies and procedures are updated, and in practice, for the Digital Age.  This is something that should not be left to individual Cabinet Departments.  Surely, when an emergency situation arises, especially at State or Defense, no one is going to drive back to the office while leaving a particular situation on hold.  Immediate and secure communications must be established.  Personally, I cannot believe that an intelligent person, such as Secretary Clinton, did not realize this—and consider the importance of Communications Security.

Switching gears now, Donald Trump’s characterization of any coordination between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, on the other hand, as being “Pay-to-Play”, is spurious at best.  In Washington, power and access are important characteristics for any high-profile person, let alone a Past President who is married to the Secretary of State.  And, even Donald Trump contributed to the Clinton Foundation.   But, there is generally not a profit motive, and no one has suggested there was one with the Clintons, or their Foundation.  Consider the following:

1. When Presidents make important overseas trips, they often take a group of corporate executives with them.  Such access has surely helped Boeing sell numerous airliners in the past, and GE to accept orders for multi-billion dollar engineering projects, among others.

2. Many Ambassadors are appointed from among a President’s campaign donors, or party hacks.

3.  George H. W. Bush founded the Points of Light Foundation while he was President, and it continued throughout the Administration of his son, President George W. Bush, and it is still operating today, in some 30 countries.

4.  John E. (“Jeb”) Bush was a popular Florida Republican Governor and politician, no doubt, due to his ready access to the Oval Office, through two Administrations.  And certainly, that helped him attract campaign contributions and make introductions?

5. When Senator Bob Dole ran for President in 1996, his wife, Elizabeth (“Liddy”) Dole, was President of the American Red Cross, at the time.

More specifically for Secretary Clinton:  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was one of 33 corporate sponsors of the Clinton Foundation Annual Meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Gates visited Clinton in her State Department Office to discuss the work that their Foundation was doing to combat Malaria, something which State was also involved with.  A L’Oreal executive was a donor to the Clinton Foundation, while the L’Oreal Charitable Foundation was separately working with people at State on Women’s Issues in developing nations.  How can this possibly be “Pay-to-Play?” And, shouldn’t the Secretary of State know about the good things that Americans are doing overseas?

Now, since I have described what Donald Trump has been using to hijack the public discussion, my next post will discuss some of the things that he might be trying to hide.


, , , , ,

  1. #1 by Susan Iseman on September 3, 2016 - 3:01 PM

    Thanks as always for your insightful commentary. Time & money investigating “email-Gate” could have been spent on more important issues and has yet to produce a serious smoking gun. Recent additions to the Trump campaign, i.e., David Bossie – will be sure to make the remaining months of this campaign as Dan Rather said: “As nasty as a frat house bathroom on New Year’s Eve.”

  2. #2 by Chewy Penn (@Scruffy_USN) on September 3, 2016 - 4:26 PM

    These are two terms that I feel describe Hillary Clinton quite well.

    A compulsive liar is defined as someone who lies out of habit. Lying is their normal and reflexive way of responding to questions. Compulsive liars bend the truth about everything, large and small. For a compulsive liar, telling the truth is very awkward and uncomfortable while lying feels right.

    A sociopath is typically defined as someone who lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way). Sociopaths have little regard or respect for the rights and feelings of others. Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.

    And the demented disgusting Liberal Democrats want to put the “Crooked, Slippery Hillary,” the scheming, dishonest, greedy, corrupt, lying, immoral, political profiteer as President of the U.S.?

  3. #3 by Chewy Penn (@Scruffy_USN) on September 3, 2016 - 4:26 PM

    (CNN) —The Washington Post’s Fact Checkers awarded Hillary Clinton four “Pinocchios” — their worst rating — after the former secretary of state defended her use of a private email server in an interview Sunday by claiming the FBI director said she had been “truthful” about the subject.

    In the interview on Fox News Sunday, Clinton had defended her use of a private email server, saying “(FBI Director James Comey) said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”

    But the Fact Checkers at the Washington Post weren’t buying it.

    • #4 by cheekos on September 3, 2016 - 4:57 PM

      In the Army, I worked in both Communications Intelligence and Security. To get into the building. you needed a Top Secret Clearance, special accesses and also a valid reason to be there. Even visitors who had all this were escorted around.

      Sure, when you work with such things all-day, everyday, it becomes routine. But procedures, safeguards and common sense suggests that you must always, always be aware of what you were doing, and your surroundings. For instance, at the O-Club you are mostly surrounded by others with similar clearances, but you do not talk business–and you do not take it home with you.

      As I said in my blog post, digital technology offers certain efficiencies in dealing with urgent matters; however, as such, the dangers are still omnipresent–and expanded exponentially. Not just State, but the entire Federal Government needs to insure that appropriate safeguards–hardware, software, policies, procedures, etc.–need to be in place, and in practice. Remember that, with hackers, the physical location and protection of the hardware (i.e. servers) becomes irrelevant. And certainly, our Laws need to be updated for today’s Digital Age and Workplace and Lifestyle.

      Secretary Hillary Clinton needs to stop embracing her feeling of self-importance, and acting as if she is above being subject to the procedures and policies that, in her apparent way of thinking, apply only to us mere mortals. HER CANDIDACY WOULD BE TOAST IF SHE VWERE RUNNING AGAINST A COHERENT, RATIONAL PERSON!

  4. #5 by cheekos on September 6, 2016 - 12:46 AM

    The linked column by Professor Paul Krugman, of Princeton University, points=out that both Donald Trump’s and Secretary Hillary Clinton’s words and actions seem to analyzed on a curve. His are graded upward, and her are slanted down. He gets an A+ if he doesn’t drop an F-bomb or vow to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants; but, she gets an D- for meeting with a Nobel Laureate, who is an old friend, or prefers to speak in small groups, rather than incite violence at rallies.


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

%d bloggers like this: