By Cal Thomas, Tribune Content Agency
I love definitions because they help focus the mind.
Under dictionary.comâ€™s definition of "corrupt" one finds the following:
1. Guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked:
2. Debased in character; depraved; perverted; wicked; evil:
3. Infected; tainted.
When used as a verb with an object we find:
4. To destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal, etc., especially by bribery.
5. To lower morally; pervert.
Don't these definitions perfectly describe Hillary Clinton? As the FBI re-starts its prematurely halted investigation into Hillary's "extremely careless" handling of classified materials, perhaps this time it will conclude what it should have concluded the first time around -- that the Democratic presidential candidate and some of her aides engaged not just in carelessness, but in criminal activity.
And isn't it wonderfully ironic that the trip wire for the FBI's announcement had to do with emails found on disgraced former Democratic congressman Anthony Weinerâ€™s computer and probably (you should pardon the expression) his hand-held device on which he sexted with women and underage girls? Among the computers reportedly seized by FBI agents is one Weiner shared with his wife and top Hillary aide, Huma Abedin, from whom Weiner is now separated.
Typical of political Washington is the reaction by liberal Democrats, including Hillary Clinton herself. When FBI Director James Comey said in July there was nothing in Hillary's behavior that warranted an indictment, liberals claimed she had been exonerated and praised Comey for his professionalism. Now that possibly new evidence has emerged necessitating another look, Democrats and the left are jumping on Comey as a political hack. They can't have it both ways, though they often try.
Another argument made by those favoring a second Clinton presidency is that she is not her husband and that Bill's lying and extramarital affairs should not reflect on her. Really? It was Bill who bragged when he was running for president in 1992 that if he was elected "you get two for the price of one." That exchange rate hasn't changed.
He was right then. They are both sleazy and enabling of each other. If Hillary wins the election, the corruption (hers and his) will follow her into the White House because that is her character and also his. If Republicans hold a congressional majority, investigations into Clinton corruption will continue and government gridlock will be worse than it is now.
Hillary Clinton would be the most unpopular president to enter the White House in modern times, perhaps of all time. Republicans and even some principled Democrats (there are a few), not to mention foreign leaders, would immediately regard her as weak and possibly a failure from the start. Her promises to continue and even expand the Obama "legacy" would not sit well with many Americans who are having difficulty finding jobs and are seeing their health insurance premiums skyrocket.
Donald Trump is a roll of the dice, but sometimes the dice come up a "seven," not snake eyes. Whatever his character flaws, at least he would start something new, including protecting the Constitution, and promising to name judges who respect it. That possibility, along with Hillary Clinton's severe character deficiencies, recommends that voters bet on a fresh start and give Trump a chance.