Nearly three out of four Democratic voters think that Hillary Clinton should continue to run for president even if she is indicted, according to a recent Rasmussen poll.
Democrats may be so attuned to Clinton’s lies, scandals, and denials that they are willing to overlook anything, but you do have to wonder if they would object to her serving as President if she were convicted. Maybe not: James Curley, after all, Democrat Mayor of Boston, served the last of his four terms from federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut, which is just a short 30 miles from Chappaqua.
Even more astounding is that 100 percent of Democratic elected officials refuse to even mentions the topic. Not one – not even one – has raised the question of whether it is appropriate for a presidential candidate who is undergoing a major FBI criminal investigation, who is accused of breaking the rules of a major cabinet office, and who blatantly and publicly lied about it, to continue as the probably Democratic nominee.
Interestingly, the same percentage of Congressional Democrats – 100 percent – support sentencing reform legislation that would release thousands of violent offenders from prison.
Several commentators have pointed out that when Richard Nixon was undergoing his Watergate problems, when the Senate was questioning the President and his aides about the break-in, Republicans were among his most vocal antagonists. Howard Baker, a senior Republican from Tennessee, did not hesitate put the country before politics when he went about trying to determine the truth about possible illegal activities by the Republican President, famously asking, “what did the President know and when did he know it?” Baker and other Republicans voiced serious objections to Nixon remaining in office, and Barry Goldwater, the 1964 presidential nominee and senior member of the Senate from Arizona went to the Oval Office to ask Nixon to resign.
If Democrats are unconcerned about Clinton the candidate, where are they when it comes to thinking about Hillary – perish the thought – the President? If she is indicted, it will be a legal decision made by the FBI and affirmed by the Attorney General and the President and unaffected by politics, and we can imagine the consequences. But if Clinton is not indicted, it would be based on a political decision, not a legal one. Then, whether or not she were to be elected, speculation, media investigations, leaks and Congressional hearings would never end, trying to answer what crimes were covered up by the Obama Justice Department in order to save her candidacy.
She would be hard pressed to survive her presidency, not to mention what sort of example she would serve to the American people and to the rest of the world.
It is astounding that no Democrat is willing to put country over politics and simply ask the question whether their party has a problem. They may just be so concerned with maintaining power, that they see Hillary Clinton as the best way of doing so, and that think she will continue to deliver the bacon that they are willing to put up with any of her transgressions to get her elected.
It is more likely, however, that it explains the liberal attitude toward the rule of law. The rule of law, after all, is fundamental to a free and constitutional government. It is what is supposed to govern the country, consistently, fairly, without bias and without favoring one person or one group over another, particularly those who are wealthier or more politically connected. And it defines, among much else, the way government officials are supposed to behave.
The New York Times wonders whether Donald Trump would be a threat to the rule of law. They would be well advised to wonder about the same thing with Hillary Clinton.