Democracy’s Verdict on Clinton

Trump shows more good judgment by not prosecuting Hillary

Philadelphia, PA., USA - July 8, 2016: Hillary Clinton rallies, at an event in Philadelphia, PA, in her race to become the first woman to take office of the President of the United States.
Philadelphia, PA., USA – July 8, 2016: Hillary Clinton rallies, at an event in Philadelphia, PA, in her race to become the first woman to take office of the President of the United States. PHOTO: GETTY IMAGES
.
Editorial
The Wall Street Journal
Updated Nov. 22, 2016 7:09 p.m. ET

.

Donald Trump’s approval rating is up nine points since Election Day in one survey, and one reason may be that he’s setting a tone of expansive leadership. A case in point is his apparent decision not to seek the prosecution of Hillary Clinton for her email and Clinton Foundation issues.

“I think when the President-elect, who’s also the head of your party, tells you before he’s even inaugurated that he doesn’t wish to pursue these charges, it sends a very strong message, tone and content,” Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway told MSNBC on Tuesday. Mr. Trump later told the New York Times that “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” adding about prosecuting Mrs. Clinton that “it’s just not something that I feel very strongly about.”

That’s the right move—for the country and his Presidency. We know from reading our email that many Americans want Mrs. Clinton treated like Mel Gibson in the climactic scene of “Braveheart.” Their argument is that equal justice under law requires that she be treated like anyone else who mishandled classified information.

But discretion is also part of any decision to prosecute. FBI Director James Comey was wrong to exonerate Mrs. Clinton before the election because that wasn’t his job and he let the Attorney General off the hook. Loretta Lynch should have taken responsibility for absolving or indicting her party’s nominee—and voters could hold her and Democrats accountable.

The voters ultimately rendered that verdict on Nov. 8, and being denied the Presidency is a far more painful punishment than a misdemeanor or minor felony conviction. Prosecuting vanquished political opponents is the habit in Third World nations. Healthy democracies prefer their verdicts at the ballot box.

Prosecution would also stir needless controversy that would waste Mr. Trump’s political capital. President Obama made the mistake of blessing then Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision in 2009 to have a special prosecutor investigate CIA officials over post-9/11 interrogations. This made Mr. Obama look vindictive and ideologically driven, and it was among the decisions that set the tone for the hyperpartisan Obama Presidency.

The press corps is making much of Mr. Trump’s campaign promise to name a special prosecutor for Mrs. Clinton, as well as the cries at his rallies of “lock her up.” That always seemed like campaign overkill, and Mr. Trump is now President-elect. His more important promise is the one he made in his victory speech to be the President of the entire nation, and democracy’s verdict is justice enough for Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/democracys-verdict-on-clinton-1479858037

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Democracy’s Verdict on Clinton”

  1. daveyone1 Says:

    Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.

  2. Ron Dahlke Says:

    “Democracy’s verdict on Clinton? Well, first off, she won the popular vote by what is now 1.5% of the total votes cast, over Donald J. Trump. “Democracy” didn’t hurt her in the least. It now turns up that,
    in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, scientists and others have discovered a three-state pattern of a 7% difference between the number of votes cast for her, between votes cast by paper ballot, and votes cast by electronic voting. By computers, that is.

    What needs to happen is that the data stored in all of the computers in the three states, be transferred to other computers, not owned by the same Republican as the ones that were used in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The computers need to be set up such that they can count the actual names of the two candidates for president, and compare the results of that count with the results that the computers used on Election Day produced. That will tell the story if there was hacking, by anyone, or other forms of electronic manipulation during the casting of ballots on Election Day.

    Real democracy is a bit of a messy thing. But the truth of the outcome of an election is worth all the effort.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: