The latest Clinton scandal (YAWWWWWNNN...)

The 'revelation' that the FBI will reopen its investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal, on the basis of 'new evidence' found on Anthony Weiner's laptop computer in a different investigation, has got the news media and the blogosphere buzzing.  There's all sorts of frantic speculation about what it means, what it might uncover, and what it might imply for US politics.

My reaction is a big fat yawn.

What does it mean?  It means that we have yet more evidence (as if we didn't have enough already) of corruption and incompetence in the Hillary Clinton campaign. If Huma Abedin could swear, under oath, that she'd handed over any and all devices containing e-mails from or to or concerning Hillary Clinton, only to have this new evidence come to light, she was either lying under oath, or incredibly forgetful about where such e-mails might be located, or just plain stupid.  The same goes for her boss, for not checking, double-checking and triple-checking that all evidence had been dealt with, one way or another.  New scandal?  Nope.  Just the same old, same old.

What might it uncover?  It might uncover more evidence (as if we didn't have enough already) of corruption and incompetence in the Hillary Clinton campaign.  Same old, same old.

What might it imply for US politics?  It might imply will confirm yet again (as if it hadn't already been confirmed, many times over) that Hillary Clinton, her husband Bill, the Clinton Foundation, and almost anyone involved with any or all of them, is/are corrupt.  Same old, same old.

I remain astonished that anyone in their right mind could vote for Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States, what with all the evidence of corruption and criminality that's come to light about her over the years.  It's like workers at an infectious disease laboratory voting to elect the smallpox virus as their new boss.

I sincerely hope that this new scandal will persuade some currently pro-Hillary voters to no longer support her.  However, the choices available to them (and to us) aren't much better, all things considered.  As I've said before, this election (like so many others) comes down to voting for the lesser of the evils confronting us.  There isn't a single candidate to whom I can point and say, "This person deserves to be President."  On the other hand, given the moral malaise infecting our society in so many ways (and against which so few of us are willing to take a stand), I can point to any of the current crop of candidates and say, "America probably deserves a President like this!"

And so we vote for the lesser of the evils confronting us.  Would Benjamin Franklin regard that as 'keeping' the republic he, and the other Founding Fathers, created for us?  I venture to doubt it.




Peter