So far, the email scandal reveals just as much about Mr Trump as about Mrs Clinton

Hillary Clinton has been pushed on the defensive by a letter from the director of the FBI, saying that her case has been reopened because of new information found in the Weiner investigation – that may or may not be significant.

The vagueness of the letter has triggered intense speculation. Many say the FBI would not do this – certainly not at this stage – unless they had found something really troublesome. Others say that the letter is unprecedented and wrong, even if there were no election ongoing. The FBI director now acts as a prosecutor, which is not his role, and it is impossible to defend oneself against unknown allegations.

Mrs Clinton demands more information and her campaign questions the FBI director’s motives. Mr Trump is having a field day and says that the US has become a third world country. How can Clinton regain control in this chaotic situation?

She may point out that so far, this latest development does not yield new information about her, but it does about mr Trump – because of the way he reacts to it. Having previously severely criticized the FBI and calling the system rigged, mr Trump now praises the FBI director. He cannot know if the new information is significant, but has already sentenced his opponent, saying she her server was illegal and that she should be in jail. In other words, Mr Trump does not care much about the separation of powers and only accepts decisions by judges, prosecutors and lawmakers that he likes. This is not the only example, it is a pattern. In this respect Mr Trump acts much like the man he seems to admire, president Putin. Mr Trump’s response to the email scandal is an indication that, if elected, he may move the United States into the direction of states like Russia or Turkey, where political opponents, judges and journalists are intimidated.
The Clinton campaign might regain control if they go on the offensive – however not attack the FBI director, but Trump. They should point out to the American public that his reactions show once again that a Trump presidency may change the country in ways that may be difficult to repair.

4 responses to “So far, the email scandal reveals just as much about Mr Trump as about Mrs Clinton”

  1. Willem Kernkamp says:

    The Clinton corruption problems are a lot more serious than you seem to think. Two billion dollars is a lot of money. Reportedly only 6% makes it to Africa, Notwithstanding his psychological profile, Mr. Trump has plenty of justification for his positions. This includes his low opinion of the press. For example, did you know that the FBI report on the Ferguson Shooting of Michael Brown, “Hands up, don’t shoot”, completely exonerated officer Wilson based on many witnesses and forensic evidence? If you didn’t, you have also been fooled by the false narrative of a racist cop shooting a harmless black teenager created by the US Main Steam media. I mention this one, because it predates Trump’s candidacy. (There are other examples) Obviously, the seriousness of the Clinton “Pay to Play” and national security violations have been severely underexposed. My question is whether Trump’s psychological profile would still be judged so negatively by you, if you constructed it with a different premise. Namely, that Trump’s complaints about Hillary, the establishment and the media are essentially valid.

  2. Thanks for your response, Willem. I don’t think I said something negative about Trump’s psychological profile in this posting. The point that I was trying to make, is that when a Presidential candidate denounces an independent institution (FBI, judges), depending on whether he likes their decisions or not, and keeps saying that the system is rigged and that he may chose not to concede a loss, he is playing with fire.

    By now, both parties are playing with fire. I think Democrats have made a mistake by accusing the FBI of partisanship, whether they believe that Clinton has been treated unfairly or not. They are now in fact echoing Trump’s claim that ‘the system is rigged’ – Clinton won’t win in that arena.

  3. Willem Kernkamp says:

    OK, now I understand what you meant. It is true that Trump more than Clinton has made an issue about independent institutions. I agree that there is danger there, but there is also a need ensure and enforce that independence. For example, Trump in cooperation with WikiLeaks and Judicial Watch has conclusively made the point that the Big Media outlets are involved in extensive collusion with the Hillary Campaign. Not only against Trump, but also against Bernie Sanders. The status of the FBI and judges is not as clear, but actually quite worrisome. The FBI is hamstrung by those in charge at the Department of Justice. The Supreme Court is one left-leaning judicial appointment away from Judicial activism on behalf of the Democratic party’s policies. Judicial activism is a reflection of the role that progressives play in any society. With too many progressives, the court will get ahead of the views of the population. They do that by loosening the restraint imposed by the Constitution. The conservative psychological role is to lag behind. Of course a reluctance to change can bring it’s own set of problems. At the moment, the court already leads rather than lags the nation. For example on gay marriage. So with Hillary appointments, the court is about to go critical with progressive judges. With Trump, the appointments will be more conservative. For example, abortion decisions will go to the individual states rather than being nationally allowed. Nonetheless, it is unlikely, that Trump will create a severely conservative court, because he is not all that psychologically conservative. This is the central issue of the election. I am not sure, but do suspect that Trump’s public spat with that judge was intended to put judges more central in the public’s mind. Obviously, in preparation for valid arguments about loosing judicial balance in the courts for the foreseeable future. Since this is written on election day, we will soon know what the electorate has decided!

  4. Good points. But what about FoxNews? Media are not (really) impartial, never have been. Questioning the FBI based on one decision still looks very dangerous to me.

    If Trump has any interest in uniting the nation, he nominates Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. But I am afraid that won’t happen.

    For now, just hoping he won’t select Sarah Palin or Tea Party people for his cabinet.