This is a US House of Representatives committee examination of the FBI director under oath conducted a day or so ago.
And here is Trump's Clinton-demolition commercial.
There is no hiding it. The perfumed, polished performer speaks with forked-tongue.
Millions will see this compelling evidence of Clinton's dishonesty.
It's a felony to handle classified material negligently.
The FBI chief found Clinton handled classified material extremely carelessly . He does not explain the difference.
A great number of people will feel cognitive dissonance over what Clinton did and how the justice system responded.
I feel tremendous sympathy for anyone in the United States who has been involved in reporting the Clinton crimes.
We owe them. Our civilisation depends on them.
I just hope they have the reservoirs of strength to match and defeat her and those who support her.
Clinton's expertise in lying is not the problem. I'm sure Nancy Wake was an expert liar, she must have been to fool the Gestapo and stay alive.
Start thinking about a world full of enemies, tricks and traps and it's not hard to see where well-intended deceptions can be a force for good.
As we speak there are thousands of police, ASIO, ASIS and other undercover operators trying as hard as they can to lie convincingly for the public good. For many of them that skill will keep them alive. If the deception fails, they die.
The best of them will win awards and write best-sellers. Society will call them heroes for what they did to the Hells Angels , Hizb ut-Tahrir or the Islamic State.
What if that same hero used the same skills to do exactly the same things to the National Australia Bank or Medicare?
It's not for one individual to decide what's in the public-good-enough to justify special-occasion law breaking. We have laws made by Parliaments, enforced by police and judged by Judges to do that for all of us.
I've heard many politicians like Clinton justify all sorts of things using the public good excuse. That proposition must always be tested against the law by independent investigators and judges.
If it is within the law - well and good. If a new law is needed to advance the public good let the Parliament agree and bliss.
But we must never allow politicians to be their own judges and policemen outside their own Parliamentary House. No matter how much the public good is served.
No one has divine authority to operate in the shadows without scrutiny of their actions. Where suspicions about dubious behaviour arise and investigations are called for - like this email server complaint - they must be complete, open and the findings have to make common sense. Any response must flow coherently from the facts and evidence.
Justice is not served by recommendations linked by no clear logic to the facts.
The people who make the laws must be subject to the laws they make. So must their friends.
Hundreds of years ago we learned that to live in freedom from oppression we must separate the governing powers.
A police chief can ask a judge to issue a warrant to allow him to break a law made by a politician. But no one person or group can hold all three powers and be a law unto themselves, even with a little help from their friends.
Even China's Constitution says "All citizens of the People’s Republic of China are equal before the law".
Article 35 tells us,"Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration".
Article 37 declares, "Freedom of the person of citizens of the People’s Republic of China is inviolable".
We in Australia don't have a constitution guaranteeing freedoms like China does. Yet we live those freedoms every day while the people of China live under the constant threat of arbitrary arrest and even execution for displeasing the ruling elites. Why? How can that be when the Constitution of the People's Republic of China is so clear?
It's the separation of powers that separates us from them.
China's political leaders hold absolute power which corrupts China absolutely. That sort of power over people can only be maintained through force.
The resentments and anger that breed civil wars and revolution come from societies that confer special privileges on special friends.
It's essential that politicians like Clinton are subject to the same laws and rules as the police, the defence force or you and me.
Big civilisation-affecting problems arise when the political class acts in concert to advance their "public good" - without regard to transparent laws that apply to us all.
An exoneration for Clinton at this stage of a criminal investigation seems to be an extraordinary action.
There are many people who will correctly point to their own prosecution and severe punishment for crimes similar to Clinton's.
Angry people do bad things.
Many on the Left are so convinced of the importance of their mission that they are blind to the sins of their own.
Now is a particularly dangerous time for America. Clinton's political opposite, Donald Trump speaks for a significant proportion of America's angry men and women. Many on the Left are trying to suppress the expression of that anger rather than listening and understanding the things that cause it.
Thus for the Left stopping Trump is for the public good. If Clinton can stop Trump, nothing must stop Clinton.
The mere suspicion that sort of thinking might have affected the investigation of crimes alleged against Clinton is so dangerous and its consequences so widespread as to ring warning bells at the US's highest levels.
Justice for all must not only be done, it must manifestly be seen to be done. Particularly now.
Whispers and rumours used to take a while to percolate. The internet speeds things up quite a bit.
Members of the US military have enough reason already to feel resentment towards the former Secretary of State, especially friends of those killed in Benghazi.
About this time last year 50 year old naval reservist Brian Nishimura was prosecuted by the FBI over mishandling classified material. The court heard he had no malicious intent, he just removed the material from the secure system at work and took it home. He's now convicted of a serious Federal Crime and banned from ever handling classified material for life.
That means no more Naval Reserve job for Brian, who was also was fined $7500 and placed on probation facing gaol for two years for any breaches of the law.
The United States is right to expect high standards of behaviour from its military personnel. It pays people to work in the military, so it's fair enough they should be held to account with responsibility matching their pay grade
Nishimura's skills and responsibilities as a naval reservist don't quite match the requirements for Commander in Chief. His job didn't pay as well either.
Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democrat nominee for President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the most powerful military force the world has ever known. At the time of her crimes she was the US Secretary of State. She's lived at public expense in the White House and Camp David, travelled around the world at public expense on Air Force One and other private jets. She's been paid handsomely for her work, including up to $500,000 for each of dozens of 30 minute speeches to US corporations hoping to curry favour with her.
So why does the United States of America hold Brian Nishimura to a higher level of accountability than Hillary Clinton?
The People's Republic of China must be laughing at the United States of America right now.
After all, in the People's Republic and the United States, everyone is equal before the law.
Copyright Michael Smith