CLINTON POLLS AND HER SCANDAL TRENDLINE

CLINTON EMAILGATE

Why Has Clinton Collapsed In The Polls?

Honesty, trust, questionable judgment and a scandal regression line which suggest strongly a potential for eight more years of divisive, wasteful scandals that will interfere with effective governing.

Was it all related to her use of a private email server? Not really. What did she actually do?

She purposely circumvented State Department rules and regulations regarding her electronic communications to avoid scrutiny and potential embarrassment at some later date by setting up a private server in her own home. Although not a declared candidate...she was even at this early date making firm plans to protect her reputation for her 2016 presidential run in 2009. She used this secret system for both her private family emails, her correspondence with her husband, and her official State Department official electronic documents. As a result, both her private correspondence and her official correspondences were commingled. In doing so, she probably compromised a certain number of "secret" government communications that would not have been exposed to potential scrutiny had she used a secure government server. Furthermore she ignored the "transparency law" that requires US officials to safeguard the historicity of their formal correspondence while in office. These documents, hard copy as well as electronic, are the people's property. Clinton ignored their right to know. As her time as Secretary of State came to en end, she broke the law again by continuing to store these commingled private and official documents in unsecured locations. First on her own private server in her home, and then she moved the server to another unsecured private company for storage. In addition, she illegally passed on some of them on to her attorney (who did not have security clearance). He stored these thumb drive copies illegally in his personal safe. At some point after she left the State Department she was required to turn over all of the official correspondence. She assigned her staff to review these "60,000 pages" of commingled private and government documents, some of which we now know were classed as "top secret" and "secret" to the view of individuals with unknown security clearances . It is also likely these unknown assistant were given the critical authority to make the final decision of which was "personal" and which was "official government" materials. Here again she compromised the security of her correspondences. Then in a final act of irresponsibility and misjudgment she had her private server wiped clean.

Finally, when her entire system became public knowledge as a result of an unrelated Congressional investigation which required her to submit her formal correspondence for a given period....her Nixon-like secret system to protect her privacy was exposed.

Then, the cover up phase began with lies and deceptions. "I did it for convenience." "It was permitted." "Others did it," etc., etc., etc. ad inclintonia.

Thus, we can see from that presented above what the big fuss is about are a series of foolish decisions, poor judgement, leading to relatively minor infractions of laws and regulations committed by a secretive, plotting, public servant, who has been repeatedly investigated in the past. And who when caught red-handed, lied about it. But why has this relatively "minor bump in the road" turned into a such major "scandal". One that has changed the political landscape in a matter of a few months? Does it rise to the level of Governor Perry's: "Oops I can't remember that one."? A seemingly minor fumble that ultimately led to the collapse of his presidential aspirations. It seems that it may.

For three reasons. One, because the email controversy first and foremost calls into question the candidate's judgment. Her ability to recognize a potential problem ahead, and her decision-making processes used to solve that problem can be questioned. How would a person with this mind set respond to the famous 2AM phone call? It also gives one pause regarding her relationship to her staff and advisors. Is her style of governing such that she completely surrounds herself by "yes men and women" among whom no one had the temerity to say: "Madam Secretary you are making a grave mistake"?

Secondly, the email debacle underscores in red ink the perception that she does not tell the truth. A dormant perception that this event brings again to life. A recent Quinnipiac poll indicated that almost two thirds of the electorate think that Mrs. Clinton is not honest or trustworthy. She has a long history which reinforces and confirms these perceptions. We need not go back into the past to make the point. The mysterious appearance of Rose Law Firm documents? Travelgate? Lincoln Bedroom rentals?

Finally, Mrs Clinton has a long history with the American public. We feel we already know a good portion of the trajectory of this person's life. This last data point (email gate) fits right on line with other plotted points on her graph. It is the EXTENSION of that average line, the regression or trendline, fitted to the plotted points which is the most troublesome and off putting for the electorate.

The American voters are now more aware of the trendline for a Clinton presidency. The extension of that line for eight more years reveals the likelihood of more scandals, more sleazy revelations, more lies and deceptions, more Clintons coming up to the bounds of legality and sidling over that boundary ever so slightly to award them some unwarranted personal financial or political advantage.

The polls indicate that many in the American public do not want Mrs. Clinton in the Oval Office. This nation has too many real and pressing problems to solve and does not have the resources to waste on political and emotional effort on a tumultuous, scandal plagued and divisive Clinton Presidency.

Mrs. Clinton may be well meaning and well prepared, but unfortunately in this case the candidate's own persona is a major distraction which has a high probability of upending the efficacy of her ability to govern.