[spacer height=”20px”]
[spacer height=”20px”]
I know very well that clichés are considered poor form and should be avoided like the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua, but is it necessarily so? Clichés are said to be overused, and I agree. They are overused because they are economical, because they flow freely, and because they retain meaning. Contrary to the opinion of my betters, it is not meaning that is lost in clichés, but rather the impact of the cliché is lost with overuse. The words after all have not changed meanings. However, I am not arguing for the greater use of clichés in writing. I, like many others, find clichés to be trite and overused. I am just suggesting that the prudent use of clichés is all right with me. For example, consider the meaning of the expression, “Silence is golden.”
Do you imagine that Hillary Clinton wishes she had remained silent in July, instead of saying, “Comey has exonerated me”? Is she now speaking from the other side of her mouth when she says, “Comey is undermining our republic”? Can she have her cake and eat it, too? Can she take a swim and not get wet? Can she keep the barrel full and still be drunk?
It appears odd to me that somehow Hillary claims James Comey is undermining our republic. It is a bold claim, but what is the truth? It may be easier to understand the situation with an example. Imagine that the local police received a tip on a drug dealer. Acting on the tip, the police begin to investigate and find evidence supporting their case. According to Hillary, the police should call a press conference and provide the public with the evidence. What the police actually do is provide the evidence to the county attorney, who reviews the evidence, and decides if there is enough evidence to prosecute the case. The public has no right to see the evidence before the trial. Hillary has merely got the cart before the horse, and her claim is absurd.
[spacer height=”20px”]
[spacer height=”20px”]
Now Hillary has expressed a concern that the FBI investigation is interfering with politics, and her concern has found footing with the Washington Post. On Saturday, the Washington Post reported that Comey poses a threat to the, “Long-standing and well-established traditions of limiting disclosure of ongoing investigations.” It is feared that this might influence the election. But Comey’s back is against the wall. He is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
If Comey failed to report that he had reopened the investigation, wouldn’t his lack of reporting favor Hillary? To be sure, Hillary would think his silence golden, but could Comey bask in the golden rays of silence knowing his inaction was influencing politics?
It seems to me that Comey would have been better served if he had remained silent in July, and Hillary would not have been claiming, “Comey has exonerated me.” Hindsight is always 20/20. However, since he opened the can of worms in July, it was incumbent on him to report the change in his investigation.
If Hillary actually wanted the transparency she now claims that she wants, she would not have set up a private server and deleted the emails in the first place. Hillary you can’t have it both ways.
With regards to clichés, perhaps William Safire was correct, “Last, but not least, avoid clichés like the plague.”
Until next time…