I agree with the main point of Jim Scharnagel’s letter Friday that both Clinton and Trump leave a lot to be desired as a president, but one is going to win. However, I greatly disagree that he feels Clinton is a much better candidate. He mentions her “knowledge and experience in grappling with the numerous problems a president must address.” However, he gives zero examples of her “knowledge and experience.” This is because she has neither; she is totally inept and has been for the past 40 years. Examples:
• Failed her bar exam out of college, could not get a job.
• Worked as a staff member on the Watergate Committee and was fired by one of the Democratic managers on the committee as being untrustworthy and having no ethics.
• Never could get a job until Bill Clinton was elected Secretary of State, then finally got job offers in Arkansas, the old Clinton payoff game.
• Has no record of legal success even as she became a “partner” in a law firm as Bill became governor, the old Clinton payoff game.
• As first lady, wanted to make a difference and was given budget and staff to address health care. She spent $32 million over a multimonth period for a 1,100-page report that a Democratic Congress, and even her husband the president, would not even consider and took her off the project.
• Was a senator from New York for six years with nearly zero accomplishments. Proposed nothing on helping women, helping minorities, helping the economy. She was a classic example of a “do-nothing Congress,” a pathetic performance for 6 years.
• As secretary of state over four years, she had every enemy hating us more, every friend respecting us less, and major powers like China and Russia laughing at us. The most miserable job anyone could ever do.
• Lied about her private computer system, lied about what was on it, broke numerous laws destroying over 30,000 e-mails, and lied about actually doing it. As the FBI said, “if she were a private citizen, she would be on trial.”
• Her “love for America” leads her to setting up the Clinton Foundation in Canada. As a charity, it gives 10 percent to charity and 90 percent to the Clintons and their friends. It was not set up in the U.S. as it breaks numerous political contribution laws, numerous SEC laws, and numerous Federal Trade Commission laws. How did her and Bill develop a net worth of between $300 million to 500 million?
I suggest Mr. Scharnagel seek facts, not liberal rhetoric. Yes, the 2016 election is a crapshoot, or a case of Russian roulette for our nation. But with Trump, you have one bullet in a six-shot revolver, so you have an 84 percent chance of winning. With Clinton, we have six bullets in a six-shot revolver; we have zero chance of winning.