The so-called "EmailGate" was never over long enough for Hillary Clinton to escape its drama. A new investigation has opened, just days before the election. However, despite the fact that this is an investigation and not a guilty sentence, her opponents have again taken the opportunity to accuse Clinton of being caught red-handed in criminal behavior.
"Crooked," "Liar," "Corrupt," and "Shrill" are words we've all heard used to describe her, on and off TV channels. Clinton's emails are at the top of the list for reasons why she is supposedly a deceitful opportunist, but her policies as Secretary of State have also been cited. Clinton has publicly admitted that she made a mistake in using a private email at work, during a presidential debate no less. And her past actions in the White House were not made individually--she had to have the support of not only the president but scores of other officials in order to do anything. It's impossible for Clinton to have done anything one-handed in a bureaucracy full of red tape and restrictions.
Donald Trump has never once shown an ounce of regret or humility in regards to his actions. He is currently the subject of many lawsuits, including a pending rape case involving a child. His businesses and affiliations have been clearly shown to skirt the law and conduct shady affairs. There's a video of him bragging about sexual assault; not just joking around with female friends but groping them as if they're nothing but objects. He has never once apologized or even conceded fault to any of these occasions.
People have relentlessly joked that the election deals with two bad options and that you have to pick the lesser of two evils — or risk a third candidate that will likely fail. But when you really think about the two options this November, they are not equally bad in the slightest. Who's a criminal? The candidate who is not objecting to the government investigating her past, and has expressed regret that her actions may have been wrong? Or the candidate who has refused to release important documents regarding his choices, and denies at every turn that he is capable of doing wrong?
Members of the alt-right have declared that Clinton should be locked up (including Trump himself), or even that she should be executed by firing squad or publicly hung. Is due process suddenly not relevant anymore? Cliven Bundy took over a nature reserve with many armed followers and was acquitted of all charges. He and his supporters defied the law with guns and were ready to take lives, many of whom would have been the police officers responding to the scene. Apparently, they're not considered criminal enough to face any charges at all.
Clinton didn't threaten any lives with her email scandal, but she made a mistake and Americans are jumping at the opportunity to rub salt in the wound as much as they can. She's considered a criminal, while renegades like Bundy walk free. Is she really the person we should be focusing our resources on? Peaceful Native American protesters against the Dakota Pipeline are being arrested and tear-gassed. Our military is involved in Middle Eastern countries that are facing mass deaths and horrific bombings. But no, we should all be concerned about Crooked Hillary's emails.
You can resent Clinton's actions all you want; it's a free country after all, and your choice is nobody else's to make. If you want to accuse someone of being a criminal, though, she is not the one you should be looking towards. We need to recognize the meaning of what we say, because the more we throw around inflammatory words without thinking, the more we lose the ability to tell exactly who has committed inexcusable wrongs. For the sake of our already flawed justice system, we must not confuse bad business decisions with true crime.
