By Stephen Owsinski:
As the day of electing our 45th United States president draws near, and the series of debates bring more languish than luster, it remains curious as to why Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to harbor contempt for law enforcers. In her Law school days, Hillary aided lawyers defending a cop-killer (Black Panthers). She also edited law journals casting cops as “racist pigs” and produced articles defending cop-killers. Can a nation’s leader who professes to be “the president for everyone” somehow mean everyone but law enforcement? I wonder.
One of Hillary’s most recent public statements included the words “implicit bias” in which she emphasized racial bias in the police. Yet, her very statement is doing the exact thing she is extolling is wrong. I smell hypocrisy.
Bill Clinton served as Governor of Arkansas when, prior to his bid for the U.S. presidency, a widely-publicized scandal transpired, known as “Troopergate.” Reportedly, Bill Clinton’s penchant for extramarital activities (while holding political office) encompassed several Arkansas state troopers—his security detail. State troopers admitted to colluding with Bill to facilitate his rendezvous with paramours. Some Troopergate revelations entail state police cruisers transporting women and Bill to clandestine meeting places, enabling intimate and/or sexual romps. Troopers fronted for then-governor Clinton, in effect lying to Hillary. For any of the involved troopers and Bill Clinton, there are no excuses for conspiratorial behavior.
Eventually, the curtain was pulled and, like Sex, Lies and Videotape, the world became aware of these forays of infidelity.
Although then-First Lady Hillary Clinton had every right to be infuriated, humiliated, embarrassed, and demoralized by a disavowed marriage, one may be compelled to wonder if she harbors a grudge against the state police for not only being complicit in but for also publicizing the entire saga of extramarital activity.
Mind you, this was before the Monica Lewinsky-era during which then-President Clinton lied on national TV, saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman!” Thereafter, he came clean and divulged in “Clintonian” fashion—skirting operative word choices—that that particular extramarital affair did transpire.
Chronology reported by Wikileaks indicates, “Lewinsky stated she had sexual encounters with Bill Clinton on nine occasions from November 1995 to March 1997. According to her published schedule, First Lady Hillary Clinton was at the White House for at least some portion of seven of those days.”
Again, Hillary was humiliated. But did she manifest blame and hold accountable any White House Secret Service security detail agents, perceiving police conspiratorially played a role in this sex-related debacle as well?
Snubbing the Fraternal Order of Police
As is customary in each presidential election year, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) sends each presidential candidate a questionnaire, the answers of which gauge how law enforcement constituents will be supported. Without fail, the FOP sent out its questionnaires. Naturally, one was dispatched to Hillary Clinton. According to the FOP, no response was ever received.
Is this to be construed as a power-play of sorts? Are there remnants leftover from some by-gone era involving a certain hubby’s exponential sexual exploits? Did Hillary simply not receive the FOP questionnaire? Is Hillary’s campaign so resentful of police to the extent it cares nothing about the FOP’s representation of approximately 330,000 cops?
Conversely, Republican nominee Donald Trump, whose platform includes a “Law and Order” thrust, received and promptly returned the same exact questionnaire, with answers indicative of universally embracing and justly supporting law enforcement officers. Not only that, Trump also detoured from his campaign trail and physically sat down for a discussion with FOP executives. Thus, one questionnaire and one in-person meeting embody Republican-candidate support from about 1/3rd of the one million cops in America.
As an FOP memorandum explains, Hillary did not even seek FOP endorsement, perhaps tacit confirmation of how she feels about law enforcement—carelessly excluding support from the world’s largest police organization.
Slamming the Secret Service
Reports of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton openly hurling profanity at her Secret Service detail—those dedicated to taking a bullet intended for her—are enough to make a serial killer’s toes curl. Archival searches indicate Hillary seemed to loathe Secret Service agents assigned to the security detail when Bill Clinton was president and Hillary was First Lady. In the capacity of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was reportedly often heard lambasting Secret Service agents, unleashing tirades laden with degrading cusswords.
Of course, Secret Service agents assigned to protect Hillary are vulnerable to her verbal, bitter blasts. Indubitably, Hillary is well-aware of the stranglehold dynamics she places on federal agents and any cops in her midst. On both sides of this particular coin, however, it speaks volumes about character traits: on one side is aristocracy, and on the other is courage under fire. No matter their personal thoughts, Secret Service agents dare not reciprocate foul-like but, instead, exude grace and humility.
In the book Crisis of Character (2016), authored by former uniformed Secret Service officer Gary Byrne, Hillary is denoted as an “Arctic monster” for her arrogance and nasty, cold tone attitude towards members of the White House security detail. Albeit debunked by some members of the Secret Service, revelations from both agents of the Service and Mr. Byrne seem to place him in proximity to the inner sanctum of the White House, close enough to overhear crass utterances and directed invective from Hillary.
As Crisis of Character publicist Vanessa Oblinger declares of Byrne’s testimonies in his book: “He was posted directly outside the Oval Office for three years.” Whether from within the Oval Office, its egress, or in hallways leading up to it, that certainly places Byrne within ear-shot of verbal communication. “The Clintons always trash the messenger. This is the first of many Clinton-directed media attempts at character assassination,” Oblinger intimated.
If that doesn’t do it for you, read Unlikeable:The Problem with Hillary by Edward Klein
Thuggery Over Law and Order
To the dismay of many (including the law enforcement community), Hillary invited and stood on the Democratic National Convention stage accompanied by several mothers of individuals killed by law enforcers. Inexplicably, it was as if Hillary was exculpating the decedents while simultaneously shaming cops for fearing for their own lives in the course of duty. How else can this be interpreted other than flaunting anti-police sentiments?
When Hillary Clinton stated she wants to be “the president for everyone,” I wondered what her definition of “everyone” means to her. Implicitly, that credo includes Americans who are also members of America’s law enforcement community. Why, then, are there persistent words and actions to the contrary?
Stephen Owsinski is an OpsLens Contributor and retired law enforcement officer whose career included assignments in the Uniformed Patrol Division and Field Training Officer (FTO) unit. He is currently a researcher and writer.