The Clinton e-mail controversy

To the editor:

With no fanfare and seemingly what has appeared to be little more than an obligatory mention throughout much of the national media, it was reported that the United States State Department has concluded following more than three years of intensive scrutiny, that “no evidence, whatsoever, was found that would indicate that Hillary Cinton, during her tenure as U.S. secretary of state in the Obama administration, caused the deliberate mishandling of classified information,” with more than 33,000 e-mails being reviewed and reportedly hundreds of past and present departmental officials also being interviewed, concluding that such has been done, as Clinton had stated during her testimony, “for expediency,” and with no other intent.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, and to this day, candidate, and later president, Trump constantly referred to Clinton as “crooked Hillary” and oftentimes sophomorically led and encouraged his supporters to chant “lock her up” at numerous campaign rallies and other governmental political events.

Knowing Trump, such a revelation will have little impact on our current president and, most probably, his verbiage toward Clinton will, unfortunately and sadly, not be appropriately altered.

It has long been quite apparent, and obvious, that Trump has little affinity for the truth, oftentimes stating “alternate facts,” also known as fabrications, in order to verbally assault those of whom he considers to be an adversary.

It appeared the national news media, for the most part, chose to focus considerably more on manufactured charges against Clinton, and not to focus on Trump’s questionable business practices across the decades, his nearly countless transgressions against women, as well as his notable ignorance, and disinterest, in “the function of government, U.S. and world history and the U.S. Constitution, and holding him virtually unaccountable for his numerous, and factless, verbal assaults and hate-filled diatribes.

For this he refers to much of the national media as “fake news” and enemies of the people” when, in fact, if it were not for a largely compliant media, Trump would have never reached the celebrity status that he has attained and, by no means, would he have been able to become our great nation’s chief executive.

I continue to find it most amazing, and troubling, that Trump has not been compelled to produce his income tax returns for public scrutiny, which has been a long-time necessary and common practice, and that prior to his candidacy for the presidency, Trump on many occasions firmly stated that not doing so should “automatically disqualify” a potential candidate from public service.

Apparently, Trump hypocritically feels all others must comply with the long-accepted tradition, and they universally do, but, somehow, he, himself, is exempt from such obligations.

Richard Hord

Martins Ferry