Can you imagine placing Donald Trump's finger on the launch button of America's nuclear arsenal? I can't, but apparently no small number of Republicans from Nevada are willing to risk this potential nightmare. Nauseating.
Meanwhile, District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who was appointed by Bill Clinton, ruled yesterday that top aides of Hillary Clinton can be questioned under oath concerning her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state. As reported by Spencer S. Hsu in a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system":
"Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin to return all emails related to Clinton’s private account, not just records their camps previously deemed work-related and returned.
'There has been a constant drip, drip, drip of declarations. When does it stop?' Sullivan said, 'This case is about the public’s right to know.'"
I guess Judge Sullivan wasn't informed by the State Department that what the American public doesn't know, can't hurt . . . Hillary, even if it is already known to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. (Mention of Judge Sullivan's ruling by The New York Times? I can't find it. Perhaps the story doesn't fall within the category of "All the news fit to print.")
Counterbalance to Hsu's WaPo story? Of course! Today, in a Washington Post "Fact Checker" entry entitled "Why the Clinton email scandal and Petraeus leak are not really alike," Michelle Ye Hee Lee opines:
"Whether the Clinton cases is 'worse' than the Petraeus case is a matter of opinion, and one we can’t fact-check. But we took a look at the factual circumstances underlying both cases. It’s easy to say that they are alike, because they both involve how a high-level government official handled information that was, or potentially was, classified. One can also argue it’s a question of judgment or transparency.
But there clearly are fundamental differences between the two cases that make it an illogical comparison, based on what we know of the Clinton case so far. At the most basic level, there is dispute over whether Clinton’s emails contained 'classified' information. An array of experts we consulted all told us that as long as the dispute exists, it will be difficult to bring the same charge of mishandling classified information to which Petraeus pleaded guilty."
There is a "dispute over whether Clinton's emails contained 'classified' information"? Oh really? Perhaps the public should be allowed to see the emails between Obama and Hillary that passed through this private server. But wait! That would be impossible, because it would implicate Obama in the scandal.
More to the point, Hillary made exclusive use of her unprotected home server while secretary of state. Are we really to understand that nothing "classified" passed through this home server from 2009 to 2013? Or, are we to understand that inasmuch as these emails were not marked "classified," even if their content was cut and pasted from classified materials, this somehow absolves Hillary from charges of gross negligence?
Spare me, Ye Hee Lee.