Which Scandal Will Do It?

Yesterday afternoon, we found the next Clinton scandal in a never-ending series.  In this one, it appears that the Brookings Institution, one of those supposedly independent "think tanks" that produce reports and analysis on any number of topics, began dumping lots of anti-Bernie Sanders reports after some healthy fundraising by Clinton confidantes.

I don't suppose I care; I can leave the caring to those who pay attention to reports that actually come out of the Brookings Institution.  It really is not clear whether or not reports from their bowels (sorry about that) influence anyone's votes one way or the other.

But I do care that there simply appears to be no end to the repeated scandals associated with the Clintons, always seeming to involve (A) influence, and (B) money.  There are a few (C)s and (D)s along the way, relating to contracts being steered toward people with connections to the Clintons, especially when the contracts follow (B) money routed to them to (A) influence them, either directly (speeches by Bill or Hillary for way more than the going rate) or indirectly (to the Clinton Foundation, which, you know, pays the two of them).

Today one poll was suggesting that those polled felt, even though by a very slight margin, they thought Hillary better equipped to handle the economy than Donald Trump.

I was a bit astonished, if only at the insanity of the average American pollee.  Hillary Clinton has run exactly nothing in the actual American economy in her entire lifetime.  The only thing she has sold for profit has been influence, and I suppose we have to concede she is extremely good at that.  Scads of US uranium in the hands of the Russians testify to that, along with incompetent and useless construction in Haiti and a whole heck of a lot else you can see in the Clinton Cash movie.

The question is pretty easy.  At what point does the USA voting public either completely write off all that corruption on the part of Hillary, in the name of whatever, or decide that the accumulated effect of all the evidence of her financial wrongdoing has added up to an unfitness for any public office, let alone the presidency?  

There is a corollary.  At what point does the American press finally decide that they, too, are Americans, and that it is no longer possible to be as far in the tank for her as they are, given the level of corruption that has risen to the level of selling out the USA (q.v. the Russian uranium scandal), and still be a shred patriotic?

I don't know that we are at that point, certainly not when it comes to the press.  But the public doesn't owe her anything.  They can go to the polls and vote for the other guy every bit as easily as they can vote for Hillary, and they seriously do not have to make her the president.

Which scandal will, indeed, "do it?"  Which will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back and derails her candidacy in a puddle of elk dung?

Fortunately we have over two months for the one thing that she has done most egregiously, whatever that may happen to be, to be exposed and finally tip the scales.  I don't if that will come from an email release by Julian Assange, or whether it will be something from the old "opposition research."  Lord knows there is plenty left to expose.

I simply hope the American voting public is flexible enough finally to release that it cannot put the nation at risk by electing someone whose corrupt nature is that innate.

Praying ...

Copyright 2016 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton