Those with criminal intent think differently about some things than most of the rest of us. For instance when the word best is used in comparing lawmen (or lawwomen) or politicians most of us look to the lawman with the track record of honesty and justice and the politician with a history of trustworthiness and support of the Constitution. However criminals have a different take on the word best. To illustrate in the hit movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid criminal Butch (actor Paul Newman) asks comrade criminal Sundance (actor Robert Redford) who the best lawman is. Sundance replies with a clarifying question as the word could have opposing meanings based on the context The best how? You mean toughest or easiest to bribe?"
It is perfectly logical to recognize that those with miscreant intent will think of the best person as in the best politician as the one easiest to bribe. And bribe they will if they see an advantage or gain from a corrupt politician especially if the deed will likely go undetected and even if detected will likely dodge prosecution.
Webster defines a bribe as money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust." Though illegal the definition and actions leading to a conviction are harder to pin down in a court of law as in most cases there must be shown an actual connection between a specific payment or favor and a specific benefit received with judicial judgment of intent also thrown into the mix.
All too often those who are deft at skirting the direct link of a quid pro quo in a bribery situation get away with it. That does not mean that the persons involved are ethical or not actually guilty of a crime.
In the movie Training Day detective Alonzo Harris (played by Denzel Washington) quips to rookie Jake Hoyt (played by Ethan Hawke) Its not what you know its what you can prove." Detective Harris refers to a situation in which Harris committed crimes but has stacked the chips on his side in order to evade discovery of his criminal activity. Even though Hoyt factually knows Harris is guilty of illegally killing a drug dealer and stealing over a million dollars Harris states that his guys (other detectives working for Harris and who witnessed the illegal killing and thieving) will back him all the way and present the lie of events Harris has fabricated. Therefore Hoyt lacks evidentiary or witness proof" that Harris is guilty.
In the circumstances surrounding Hillary Clintons alleged practice of selling access and influence - bribery - the slippery Clintons may have succeeded over time in stacking the chips on their side. People are correct in wanting to get to the bottom of the enormous amounts of money paid to the Clintons for speaking fees and that contributed to the so-called charitable foundation they run especially by sources with possible conflicts of interest and by foreign corporations and governments. Much of the cash was received from entities who were simultaneously lobbying the government for some favorable action as reported by the Washington Examiner.
Amid all the Clintons questionable wheeling and dealings are there traceable and provable quid pro quos? Or as many wonder has all the damaging evidence (such as emails) been erased and knowledgeable persons persuaded to keep silent? And even if some tit-for-tat transactions are found but direct criminal intent is not incontestable such that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" (to quote FBI Director James Comey in giving Clinton a pass regarding her most recent email scandal) does that equate to her innocence?
Or instead does it simply mean that the Clintons have devised a cagey scheme of circumventing the law for vast personal gain while Hillary is and may be in the future a person in a position of trust? Many see the Clintons as having slithered through the slimy weeds of deceit and ill gotten gains for decades now undoubtedly learning a thing or two along the way while honing their nefarious skills to art-form perfection.
If it were simply a case of one or two outlying instances of questionable circumstance in otherwise unblemished and virtuous political careers that would be one thing. But good grief the magnitude of out and out lies deceit and furtive dealings involving the Clintons are notorious and present a consistent pattern spanning no less than decades. This long-standing pattern provides credence to the idea of a Clinton master plan of voracious self enrichment at the expense of everything and everyone; national security ethics and laws be damned.
Hillary now wants to get her hands on the most powerful position in the world the U.S. presidency. Once a person is elected to a position of public trust as in the President of the United States we are very much at the mercy of what we expect to be the honorable intentions of that responsible elected official. With all the deceitful baggage Hillary would be carrying to that office who could possibly be confident in her sense of honor? Her trustworthiness ratings while campaigning are indeed nothing to be proud of and show that perhaps most people still believe in consequence and logic not in Hillarys self-ordained entitlement to be crowned head of this country.
Logic in fact drives us to ask two fundamental questions: 1) Are the Clintons truly filled with the charity spirit when so little of their foundation money is actually used for charity? 2) Are they truly blessed with such insight and intellect and are such dynamic speakers that their numerous huge speaking fees and the timing of those fees justified?
Undoubtedly what has been seen publically from those two would fail to produce anything beyond a moderate speaking income in any rational world. But who are we to judge? Certain Wall Street banks financial institutions and foreign corporations and governments must think Hillary and Bill are the tops. With all the hundreds of millions they have sloshed to the Clinton Foundation and with speaking fees totaling close to $153 million the Clintons must be outstanding if not the very best. But as in the movie when Sundance replies to Butch best in what context?
Copyright © 2016 Gary Hancock. All rights reserved.
A version of this article first appeared at AmericanThinker.com .
Those with criminal intent think differently about some things than most of the rest of us. For instance when the word best is used in comparing lawmen (or lawwomen) or politicians most of us look to the lawman with the track record of honesty and justice and the politician with a history of trustworthiness and support of the Constitution. However criminals have a different take on the word best. To illustrate in the hit movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid criminal Butch (actor Paul Newman) asks comrade criminal Sundance (actor Robert Redford) who the best lawman is. Sundance replies with a clarifying question as the word could have opposing meanings based on the context The best how? You mean toughest or easiest to bribe?"
It is perfectly logical to recognize that those with miscreant intent will think of the best person as in the best politician as the one easiest to bribe. And bribe they will if they see an advantage or gain from a corrupt politician especially if the deed will likely go undetected and even if detected will likely dodge prosecution.
Webster defines a bribe as money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust." Though illegal the definition and actions leading to a conviction are harder to pin down in a court of law as in most cases there must be shown an actual connection between a specific payment or favor and a specific benefit received with judicial judgment of intent also thrown into the mix.
All too often those who are deft at skirting the direct link of a quid pro quo in a bribery situation get away with it. That does not mean that the persons involved are ethical or not actually guilty of a crime.
In the movie Training Day detective Alonzo Harris (played by Denzel Washington) quips to rookie Jake Hoyt (played by Ethan Hawke) Its not what you know its what you can prove." Detective Harris refers to a situation in which Harris committed crimes but has stacked the chips on his side in order to evade discovery of his criminal activity. Even though Hoyt factually knows Harris is guilty of illegally killing a drug dealer and stealing over a million dollars Harris states that his guys (other detectives working for Harris and who witnessed the illegal killing and thieving) will back him all the way and present the lie of events Harris has fabricated. Therefore Hoyt lacks evidentiary or witness proof" that Harris is guilty.
In the circumstances surrounding Hillary Clintons alleged practice of selling access and influence - bribery - the slippery Clintons may have succeeded over time in stacking the chips on their side. People are correct in wanting to get to the bottom of the enormous amounts of money paid to the Clintons for speaking fees and that contributed to the so-called charitable foundation they run especially by sources with possible conflicts of interest and by foreign corporations and governments. Much of the cash was received from entities who were simultaneously lobbying the government for some favorable action as reported by the Washington Examiner.
Amid all the Clintons questionable wheeling and dealings are there traceable and provable quid pro quos? Or as many wonder has all the damaging evidence (such as emails) been erased and knowledgeable persons persuaded to keep silent? And even if some tit-for-tat transactions are found but direct criminal intent is not incontestable such that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" (to quote FBI Director James Comey in giving Clinton a pass regarding her most recent email scandal) does that equate to her innocence?
Or instead does it simply mean that the Clintons have devised a cagey scheme of circumventing the law for vast personal gain while Hillary is and may be in the future a person in a position of trust? Many see the Clintons as having slithered through the slimy weeds of deceit and ill gotten gains for decades now undoubtedly learning a thing or two along the way while honing their nefarious skills to art-form perfection.
If it were simply a case of one or two outlying instances of questionable circumstance in otherwise unblemished and virtuous political careers that would be one thing. But good grief the magnitude of out and out lies deceit and furtive dealings involving the Clintons are notorious and present a consistent pattern spanning no less than decades. This long-standing pattern provides credence to the idea of a Clinton master plan of voracious self enrichment at the expense of everything and everyone; national security ethics and laws be damned.
Hillary now wants to get her hands on the most powerful position in the world the U.S. presidency. Once a person is elected to a position of public trust as in the President of the United States we are very much at the mercy of what we expect to be the honorable intentions of that responsible elected official. With all the deceitful baggage Hillary would be carrying to that office who could possibly be confident in her sense of honor? Her trustworthiness ratings while campaigning are indeed nothing to be proud of and show that perhaps most people still believe in consequence and logic not in Hillarys self-ordained entitlement to be crowned head of this country.
Logic in fact drives us to ask two fundamental questions: 1) Are the Clintons truly filled with the charity spirit when so little of their foundation money is actually used for charity? 2) Are they truly blessed with such insight and intellect and are such dynamic speakers that their numerous huge speaking fees and the timing of those fees justified?
Undoubtedly what has been seen publically from those two would fail to produce anything beyond a moderate speaking income in any rational world. But who are we to judge? Certain Wall Street banks financial institutions and foreign corporations and governments must think Hillary and Bill are the tops. With all the hundreds of millions they have sloshed to the Clinton Foundation and with speaking fees totaling close to $153 million the Clintons must be outstanding if not the very best. But as in the movie when Sundance replies to Butch best in what context?
Copyright © 2016 Gary Hancock. All rights reserved.
A version of this article first appeared at AmericanThinker.com .