“Spiro who?” ask some of our readers. Even those who remember Agnew may be wondering what’s the connection between a discredited, disgraced U.S. Vice-President and the current Democrat presidential front runner. Given that context, the question about answers itself.
Even as the voting for a Democrat presidential nominee has begun, there’s an ever growing smell of scandal blanketing Hillary Clinton. She and her campaign’s efforts to mix “What me worry?” with,“I’m the victim.” is a two pronged strategy made increasingly unbelievable and ineffective by the facts.
Evidence of, at best, negligence in matters of national security, or at worst, criminal wrong doing, is bubbling up on a weekly, if not daily basis. And those are just the headaches related to Hill’s email mess. All that doesn’t even include possible conflicts of interest connected to the millions of dollars dumped into the Clinton Foundation. Yet, Hillary remains her party’s prohibitive favorite to win their nomination.
It’s a scenario some Dem realists must find quite troubling. That would especially include those folks who either lived through, or remember the mess created in 1975, by Richard Nixon’s VP, Spiro T. Agnew. On October 10th of that year, sins once thought long buried safely in Mr. Agnew’s past, forced him to resign from office.
Faced with multiple charges including bribery, extortion, tax fraud, and conspiracy he pled no contest to having not reported $29,500 of income received in 1967. It was basically a plea agreement conditioned upon his stepping down. Spiro also lost his law license and received 3 years probation.
President Nixon, soon to resign himself, was allowed via the 25th Amendment, to select a congressionally approved replacement for Agnew. He named Gerald Ford. The transition was relatively smooth because there was a clear constitutional guideline.
But what rules govern the possibility of a presidential candidate, already selected by her party, being brought up on serious charges of malfeasance? There’s no precedent, and therefore no ground rules available for pols and delegates to follow.
Hillary loyalists feel certain the Obama Administration will never take any legal action against her. But whose to say for sure? Nixon and Agnew had come off a landslide victory just before their wheels came off. If a politician of President Nixon’s power and experience couldn’t see that train wreck coming, what absolute guarantees are there for Hill and her Dem Party?
And even if Clinton dodges a prosecutorial bullet, do her followers really believe the FBI will be content to see their many thousands of hours of investigative work go into the dumper? What kind of rational thinking could allow them to conclude a disrespected Federal Bureau of Investigation will suddenly stop leaking more horribly damaging information on Hillary?
Consider also that while Agnew was accused of what most would consider white collar crimes, not all that atypical for long serving pols, accusations against Clinton are much more sinister. Her dismissive “What difference does it make.” attitude regarding the 4 Benghazi deaths has only amplified recent claims that her failure to secure top secret information puts intelligence operatives “lives at risk”, according to Fox News.
Actually if we do a comparison of Spiro Agnew’s crimes and the allegations swirling around Hillary Clinton, our late, former vice president could be holding the higher ground. Start with money. Any dirty dough he may have pocketed would pale in comparison to the many millions of questionable “donations” funneled into the Clinton Foundation. And nothing connected with Agnew’s criminality was said to have either cost American lives, threatened national security, or required scrutiny from 150 FBI Agents.
Remember Vice President Agnew went from the penthouse to the outhouse, and almost to the “big house” in a matter of a few, short months. Hillary Clinton could wind up being the Democrat version of Spiro Agnew….or worse.