This essay is dedicated to all those Bernie Sanders supporters who are absolutely sure that Hillary Clinton is a crook who has stolen the election from him. (I have many of them among my family and friends.)
Follow the Money: That's my guide for figuring out the real positions of the various talking heads supporting the various candidates in this wild and crazy election cycle.
For example, if the Republican members of Congress were really serious about the security dangers of Hillary's home email server, they would be investigating the computer security situation and email situation for the whole State Department, and possibly the whole government, reviewing all the policies, and setting standards for all future Secretaries of State, and possibly all government officials. What have we heard about that? Nothing, of course, because the investigation was never about email security. It was about raising questions about Hillary's honesty. Now that the F.B.I. has come up with nothing on that front, Hillary will be under investigation for her testimony before Congress. Because having her "under investigation" is the whole point.
In a similar vein, the outpost at Benghazi was a "soft target" that was not properly defended when it was attacked because the Republican members of Congress had made it so. They had cut the funding for guards and security construction for places like that. Of course, in the Republican world, Hillary is responsible for the attack because she was Secretary of State. And, by the way, the Hillary quote, "what difference does it make?" was said when she was asked about the attribution of the attack, not about the deaths of the personnel there. If the Republican members of Congress were truly outraged about this event, they would be appropriating money to beef up the security around consular outposts like Benghazi. Is that happening? No way.
The rule is simple: if there's no money spent to solve the problem that the Republicans are outraged about, it's not real outrage.
Why have the Republicans targeted Hillary and not Bernie in this election cycle? Rest assured, Bernie would have been a target if he had earned the nomination. For starters, he's a Democratic Socialist who had to change parties to run for President. I am sure that he would be an avowed Communist, and thus the avowed enemy of any American old enough to remember the Cold War, by the time the Republican propaganda machine got through with him.
Bernie was a valuable addition to the primary process. He contributed a great deal to the discussion of ideas on education and health care--ideas which have worked well in Europe for many years, but which have never found support here. I have family in Europe, and I have seen how well their health care and educational systems function, and I do hope that Bernie's ideas can be implemented here.
But I have not joined the "never Hillary" camp. There have been decades of investigations against her, and none of them have ever turned up anything. It's not because she somehow managed to pull strings, run the legal process through endless appeals, and pay lawyers to juggle the legal system for years. It's because the investigations, long and involved as they were, in the end found nothing against her.
In saying this, I should point out that there is a candidate for President this year who presents the reverse of Hillary's background. He has had decades of lawsuits against him, he is an expert in pulling strings, in running the legal processes through endless appeals, and he has paid a lot of lawyers to juggle the legal system for years, so that he doesn't have to face the consequences of his actions. He is very proud of this record. He has used the legal system for his personal gain – and to get out of paying his debts – for decades.
Do you really want him to be in charge of the country?