Hillary Clinton’s lead over Vermont senator Bernie Sanders may hold her in good stead to clinch the Democratic nomination, but there are a number of thorns in the front-runner’s path that she cannot simply wish away. This article attempts to articulate why Clinton’s path to the White House is still strewn with difficulties, and why most of it — or probably all of it — is of her own making.
Private Email Server Scandal
Perhaps the thing that could come back to haunt Clinton most from her past is the classified material she sent through her private email server during her tenure as the Secretary of State. The private server was used by the Clinton Foundation, and by Hillary’s own admission, was even used by Bill Clinton when he ran for office in the 1990s.
What baffles many is that even as the head of the State Department, Hillary Clinton was reckless enough to share classified material on a server which was also used by many of her close aides in the Clinton Foundation.
Moreover, Clinton’s feeble attempts to distance herself from the repercussions of her recklessness have not helped her. While she has hardly been able to answer with any conviction as to why she would make such a grievous error as the Secretary of State, the mainstream media’s censure of the whole episode has raised further eyebrows from her critics, who believe that Hillary has something to hide.
“It was already there, it had been there for years. It is the system that my husband’s personal office used when he got out of the White House. And so it was sitting there in the basement. It was not any trouble at all,” Clinton has previously said about the convenience of the whole situation.
— Portmanteau Jones (@SadlyCatless) April 30, 2016
As it stands, the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails, and while the bureau is keeping its cards close to its chest, some legal experts have said that the FBI might already have unearthed enough evidence to indict her. As reported by the Inquisitr, Judge Andrew Napolitano even went on to suggest that Clinton stands to lose her Democratic nomination, even if she manages to beat Bernie Sanders come July.
Multiple sources have confirmed that four of Clinton’s aides — Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, Heather Samuelson, and Philippe Reines — have already been questioned by the FBI, and Hillary Clinton could be summoned soon by the agency. While the Clintons have maintained that they are fully co-operating with the bureau, Bill Clinton’s constant branding of the investigation as “a game” is consistent with their tactics of deflection — a tool the power couple have often been accused of using to their advantage over the course of the last few decades.
Meanwhile, the director of the FBI, James Comey, has maintained that the agency is committed to conducting its investigation “competently, honestly, and independently.”
— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) April 6, 2016
It remains to be seen if Hillary Clinton is indicted in the weeks and months to come, but it is a possibility that could seriously dent her presidential bid. Because as one Redditor very succinctly put it, Hillary Clinton’s actions come under the gambit of “public corruption” — solving which, FBI concedes, is its number one priority.
“Public corruption poses a fundamental threat to our national security and way of life. It impacts everything from how well our borders are secured and our neighborhoods protected … to verdicts handed down in courts … to the quality of our roads, schools, and other government services. And it takes a significant toll on our pocketbooks, wasting billions in tax dollars every year.”
Goldman Sachs Speeches
Hillary Clinton’s close association with Wall Street has also added to her woes, partially because of the nature of the Democratic race this time around. Since the beginning of the race, Bernie Sanders has sought to have Clinton explain the reasons as to why she received $675,000 for three speeches she delivered to Goldman Sachs, often to no avail.
Her cryptic response to the questions have ranged from evading them with a shrug to saying it’s “what they offered.”
Clinton has previously stated that she would release the transcripts of the speeches, but it has never actually transpired. A report in the Huffington Post suggested that the reason that Clinton is so protective of her speeches is because their release could deal her a lethal blow as far as her candidacy is concerned.
“It looks like they would cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.
“Nor should we do here what Senator Sanders kindly declined to do at the Democratic debate last night, which is mention any of the proof — voluminous as it is, as Sanders conceded in a post-debate interview that cited Elizabeth Warren’s criticisms of Clinton — that during the housing crisis Clinton acted precisely like a politician who’d been bought off by Wall Street.”
— POLITICO (@politico) May 1, 2016
The transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s Goldman Sachs speeches may never see the light of day, because if they do, it could potentially cost Clinton her presidency. But if Clinton does not release them, which now seems more likely, she could continue to expect more questions being asked of her in the weeks and months to come.
Panama Papers Revelations
As reported recently in the Inquisitr, the Panama Paper revelations implicated a number of Hillary Clinton’s super-rich associates from all the world. Some of the names included Frank Giustra, the Chagoury family, Marc Rich, and Sandy Weill.
According to RT, the Clintons have known some of those named in the papers for more than four decades.
— John Burtis (@jburtis) August 6, 2015
Worse still, Hillary’s financial associates have been accused of “terrorism, dictatorship, [and] money-laundering,” among other crimes. The list casts a murky shadow on the past and present associations of the Clintons, and one would be hard pressed to comprehend the reasons for the mainstream media to censure these associations in the way it has done over the past many months.
In a nutshell, the question being asked by Clinton’s critics is this: can the United States afford a president with such a plethora of associates who have all been implicated in major crimes themselves?
“Hillary has so far successfully managed to evade full public scrutiny on her relationships with these business swindlers, but the funding of her presidential campaign has been done on the backs of such relationships, and it would be impossible for her to avoid further scrutiny even if she manages to get a shot at the Oval Office come next January.”
Despite Hillary Clinton leading Bernie Sanders in the Democratic race, there have been many serious allegations leveled against her in the past few months. Her foreign policy record has been widely criticized, while her indifference towards young voters also speaks about the disregard the Clintons have generally reserved for the millennials. Add to that the fact that Hillary Clinton has dampened the progressive agenda of the Democrats with her moderate conservatism in matters of healthcare and economic policies.
While her supporters continue to pose her as the only alternative to Donald Trump, Clinton’s murky past points to a presidential candidate who might struggle in helping Americans in resolving some of their most pressing problems.
What do you think about Hillary Clinton’s chances of entering the Oval Office?
[Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images]