Whom do you trust?

Election 2016

I bet you trust a lot more people than you've ever thought about.

Click to enlarge

Do you drive? You wouldn't unless you trusted other drivers to obey the law and handle their vehicles somewhat competently. You couldn't unless you trusted the people who designed and built the roads and bridges to have built them well.

Do you ride in elevators? Attend public events? Eat out? There are countless activities that require trust.

Whom do your trust for advice? There are professionals who dispense advice on health, finance, relationships, and countless other subjects. Have you ever availed yourself of their services?

In many cases you carefully consider whom you're going to trust. In others, you throw caution to the wind and trust anonymously.
​
Then we come to politics. Whom do you trust? Who will influence your voting decisions and who won't? Family and friends? Some yes. Some no. Generally, I trust those whom I respect, but not always because sometimes the people we trust disagree with us.

​Let me tell you a story...

I have many friends I've never met, not in person. I've met them on the Internet. While some find the Internet a scary place full of demons and monsters, I find it rather safe. So do others. We can reveal our innermost secrets without fear of being exposed. The distance shields us from direct contact and, more importantly, reprisal. If they attempt to hurt us we can “unfriend” or “block” them without the need of a restraining order. 

I found one such friend on RallyPoint, a weblog for those who serve or have served in the military. She served as a nurse during the war in Vietnam. She supports Hillary Clinton's candidacy for the White House during this mad campaign of 2016. While most on RallyPoint rail against Hillary's bid, she defends her saying “...she has my respect and confidence that she is by far the most able candidate to come along this season. She brings class, legitimacy, experience and most importantly competence to do the job. While the haters ramble on about Spamghazi, her pant suits and sauté over crackpot theories....she takes the fire and fights back with resolution.” 

I couldn't disagree more and have wondered how someone of her education (she holds a doctorate) and experience could come to those conclusions. Then I thought of my own failings in judgment, particularly one: Spiro T. Agnew.

For those too young to remember (or have simply forgotten) Spiro Agnew was Vice President of the United States under Richard Nixon, and was forced to resign when indicted for land fraud. I knew Spiro Agnew well and once trusted him just as this friend on RallyPoint now trusts Hillary Clinton.
 
Spiro Agnew enjoyed a meteoric rise from PTA president (at the high school I attended) to Baltimore County Executive (in the year that the Democratic machine in Maryland fell apart) to Governor of Maryland to Vice President in a period of about six years. While governor, he succumbed to temptation to make a killing to help pay his campaign debts and sock away a small fortune for future endeavors. He knew that a seemingly worthless parcel of land on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay would soon rise in value precipitously when a new span crossed the bay and would land there. Agnew purchase the land for a song and then sold it to the state. In other words, he used insider knowledge to take advantage of the citizens who had entrusted him with great power. That sounds a lot like Clinton, doesn't it?

There is little question that the Clinton Foundation is bursting at the seams with foreign donations earned through influence peddling. Yes, Hillary's supporters will argue, she hasn't been indicted. The fact is that Hillary hasn't been indicted for many things for which a prima facie case exists. The Director of the FBI enumerated a case that Hillary should be indicted on many charges but refused to recommend prosecution because intent couldn't be proven (even though intent is not a legal requirement for indictment). 

We've also seen countless examples of Hillary lying to investigators in televised hearings and lying to the public in televised interviews, and yet my friend defends her. Why? Why would a person I respect defend her when the evidence is so obvious? How can she dismiss those of us who revile Hillary as crackpots or conspiracy theorists or, even worse, conservatives when the evidence is so obvious?

Click to enlarge

As I pondered this paradox I remembered Spiro T. Agnew. I trusted him. I knew him even better than my friend knows Hillary. My friend met Hillary on at least one occasion she has described, when she briefed Hillary on a foreign relations matter. I believe I knew Agnew even better. He was my professor of torts in law school. We were brothers in the same legal fraternity. He's now buried near my mother. I trusted him until he was found guilty of succumbing to temptation that comes with great power. I stopped trusting him. How can my friend continue to trust Hillary when she has amassed an even greater fortune succumbing to the same temptation?

So whom should I trust? Her judgment or mine?