Is Clinton a Criminal? (Blog Stage Four)

On June 13, Dan Wright wrote an opinion article for Shadowproof (sourced from Firedoglake)with a title blaring accusation and discontent: “HILLARY CLINTON BROKE LAWS OBAMA HAS BEEN PROSECUTING PEOPLE FOR BREAKING.” The subject, as plainly stated, is that Clinton sent classified information regarding drone strikes and other issues using her private e-mail account. Wright also claims that Clinton was in violation of two federal laws--the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act.  This, as admitted by Wright, is speculation and has yet to be proven or disproven by fact. 

Wright may not be the most qualified author to give such grave accusations.  His bio reads simply, "Daniel Wright is a longtime blogger and currently writes for Shadowproof. He lives in New Jersey, by choice." It would appear all opinions and declarations are the result of personal experience as a citizen of the United States, and may not have been formed from careful study with unbiased guidance. On the other hand, a liberal blog such as Shadowproof is meant to be a source of left-winged discussion and opinion, which also implies that Wright's intended audience is his fellow liberal internet readers and potential voters.

To support the idea that Clinton should be punished for her anti-law-abiding actions, Wright brings forward accounts of the Obama Administration acting against individuals who have sought to expose classified information, known as whistleblowers. Had Clinton been "a low-level state department official," Wright writes, she would have already faced consequences for her actions. Her power, however, brings her immunity to any political harm.  

This article recalls a blog I wrote earlier, "Obama's Clinton Endorsement," in which, as plainly titled, I discussed Obama's official endorsement of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Could Obama's reluctance to punish Clinton for her supposed illegal actions be influenced by his preference for Clinton over Trump? His desire to keep Democrats in the White House? Such an instance would not be surprising, considering the high costs of presidency.  The Clinton situation as a whole, however, leads me to wonder whether or not Americans can trust the government that promises to act rightfully and justly on their behalf. Wright jumps forcefully to conclusions that have not been proven or tried, failing to convince me of any criminal action on Clinton's behalf, but nevertheless forcing me to contemplate the intentions of our political leaders.