“Trust your hunches. They’re usually based on facts filed away just below the conscious level.” – Joyce Brothers
Every day, there seems to be a new revelation regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails. The most recent of these revelations is that at least two emails that passed through Clinton’s personal server while she was Secretary of State contained Top Secret material—something Clinton has denied for months.
We are being inundated with news about the emails, the server, and everything in-between, and while all of this is taking place, Hillary enjoys a dramatic lead in the primary, and according to NBC, her favorability stands at 37 percent.
According to the polls, 37 out of every 100 people view Clinton favorably. Who are these people? Are they mentally challenged? I’m sorry, that’s an insult to the mentally challenged.
In all seriousness, I question what these people are thinking. The conclusion to which I’ve come is that they simply aren’t paying attention. Either that, or that they’ve been so pummeled by information that they’ve just shut down.
Not everyone is a political wonk. Most Americans don’t dive very deeply into the political waters. I can only assume that the 37% of people who view Hillary Clinton favorably are the same people who stay in the shallow end of the political pool.
If you know a rabid Hillary supporter, clarify the argument against the former Secretary of State with a series of linear questions. Take away everything we’ve learned over the last several months, and return to one basic question: Why did Hillary Clinton refuse to turn over her server?
If you had reason to believe your spouse was cheating on you, and they refused to unlock their cell phone, what would you think?
A lack of transparency and an unwillingness to reveal information are key signs of dishonesty—specifically if you’re a public servant. If you would question your spouse’s refusal to unlock their phone, why wouldn’t you question Hillary’s refusal to turn over her server? Is it not suspicious? Can you think of any justification? If there was nothing to hide, there was nothing to fear.
This leads to the next question. If Hillary feared turning over her server—instead, turning over emails only she herself deemed “work related,” and wiping the rest clean—what was on that server? The only conclusion one can come to is that it was something inappropriate or something criminal.
This leads to the final question. If Hillary Clinton was concealing something inappropriate or criminal, why would you trust her?
It all boils down to why Hillary Clinton—a public servant, whose records should be freely available to congress—said “The server will remain private.”
Simplicity is the key to logical arguments. Stick to these questions; hold tightly to this logical line, and your Hillary-boosting friend will have no choice but to question their beliefs.