The Willing Suspension of Disbelief will Destroy America
Voters are the last line of defense against government corruption
July 18, 2016
How can we forget then-Senator Hillary Clinton’s questioning of General David Petraeus during his congressional testimony on Iraq? She snidely accused him of deception with these words: “I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief." To her long-time critics, it was a textbook example of the pot calling the kettle black. Now that she’s asking Americans to suspend their disbelief, those words have to be considered the most ironic statement ever uttered during her long, deceitful career.
Democrats are anxious to accommodate her, and have seized on FBI Director Comey’s recent announcement as Clinton’s vindication. Yet despite Comey’s bewildering recommendation that she not be indicted, he concluded that Clinton did, in fact, violate at least one criminal statute. Comey’s feeble defense of his decision was that no reasonable prosecutor would invoke that particular arcane law in this case.
But important issues were glossed over. Though Clinton’s original intention goes to the very heart of the matter, Comey admitted that had not been the focus of the investigation. He seemed to accept Clinton’s explanation for establishing her clandestine server - that she did it for convenience. Yet he discredited that claim when he said she used several devices and multiple servers, periodically replacing them. Even one of her closest allies, James Carville, suggested that Clinton’s purpose was clear - she didn’t want Republican lawmakers “rifling through her emails.” It seems clear to everyone but Comey that her purpose was to evade proper congressional oversight and the Freedom of Information Act.
The FBI and State Department investigations also exposed the magnitude of Clinton’s dishonesty, concluding that she lied about virtually every aspect of her covert server. She is the only Secretary of State to install a private server, which was less secure than even commercial systems. She never sought approval for her system, and the State Department would never have authorized it. She did not return all official correspondence to the State Department. She did, in fact, improperly send and receive highly classified emails through her system. They were classified at the time of transmission. And if they were not properly marked, we can understand why by looking at one message dated June 17, 2011. In it, Clinton instructed a subordinate to remove security markings from a classified memo and send it through non-secure channels.
Though Comey could not seem to find a criminal violation anywhere in that, he might consider Clinton’s congressional testimony on the four Americans killed in Benghazi. There, she repeated those same lies under oath. That constitutes perjury, so Congress has issued another referral to the FBI. If it follows the same path as the last one, we already know how it will end. In fact, Congress doesn’t need another investigation to take action. It held former Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt after refusing to produce subpoenaed documents. It held Lois Lerner in contempt for refusing to testify - after waiving her rights. There was even talk about directing the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Lerner.
But it’s clear that if justice is to be served in this case, it will have to come from the voters in November. They are our last line of defense against government corruption.
Objective, intelligent voters can no longer deny Hillary Clinton’s repeated, effortless, and shameless lies. Though some Democrats are torn between party loyalty and government integrity, most aren’t. They’re more concerned about milestones than honest and transparent government. Whether it’s Benghazi, the email scandal or those suspicious speaking fees collected from Wall Street insiders and foreign governments, they smugly remind us there is no proof of wrongdoing. That’s willful blindness - the willing suspension of disbelief.
Voters aren’t bound by rules of evidence, and complicated legal maneuvers. They only need common sense, reasonable intelligence, and objectivity. If Democrats don’t see a problem with Clinton, it’s because they don’t want to. If they cared about the integrity of our government and the future of the country, their children’s future, they would open their eyes to Clinton’s inherent dishonesty. Those frenzied crowds at Clinton’s rallies suggest that won’t happen.
If Clinton wins this election, they’ll be ecstatic. But while they’re crying tears of joy over another milestone, the families of those Benghazi victims will still be shedding tears of pain, and the country will continue to decline under a corrupt administration - free from meddlesome oversight. Like her predecessor, Clinton will continue to fuel racial tensions and facilitate the flood of illegal immigrants. Fittingly, most of those uplifting campaign promises will be exposed as self-serving lies, like her other lies. Tragically, there will be no hope of uniting the country behind such a universally mistrusted figure. America will be shattered.
Hillary Clinton would not be where she is without the people supporting her. In past elections over the past 240 years, the American people passionately debated political issues, but unanimously demanded integrity in our presidential candidates. Together with constitutional checks and balances, they have kept our government relatively free of corruption. We are now suffering the consequences of the last ground-breaking election, and we don’t need another milestone. We need to once again demand integrity in our leadership. When American voters suspend their disbelief and common sense to elect a president they instinctively know to be corrupt, our country is lost.
Peter Lemiska has spent more than 28 years in government service. He is a former Senior Special Agent of the U.S. Secret Service and an Air Force veteran. His political commentaries have been widely published online and in print.