Equating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is Simply Wrong

To say that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are equally bad, or crooked, is to (1) believe thirty years of highly organized assault on the character & integrity of the most qualified person, Hillary, to ever run for president in our times, and (2) to overlook a lifetime of Trump thievery, lies, tax dodging, xenophobia, sexual predatory conduct, claims of genetic supremacy, and outright contempt for the less fortunate & the very people he portends to care for.

He had been sued hundreds of times for fraud, and over two hundred and thirty times, he settled with plaintiffs. She, on the other hand, has never been sued and has never been found at fault for any criminal activity. After tens of investigations, from White Water to Benghazi, she was never found guilty of anything, even though Republicans have tried, and are trying, their very hardest, since 1991 through this very moment, two days before the election.

Equating Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is simply wrong. The notion that she is corrupt is entirely a far right wing product that has no basis in reality. In a society which celebrates ruthless profit making and rewards corporate greed with mammoth bonuses, faulting Hillary for a $250K fee per speech is diabolical. Trump charges millions of dollars, monthly, for the mere use of his name on residential buildings, hotels, golf courses, etc., without even giving a monthly speech on behalf of those businesses, and that is seen as savvy business.

Why is it acceptable for his name to become a brand and a franchise while she is denied the benefit of good old fashioned capitalism and free market trade? After all, her words & speeches are her intellectual property which Goldman Sachs and others place a monetary value on and are more than capable of paying for. She has the right to charge whatever fee she deems appropriate and the inviting companies are free to choose whether to invite her. The idea that the speech fees were a form of "pay to play" is insulting and baseless. She was a private citizen when she gave those speeches and any "promises" she may have made are aspirational and are based on her personal perspective, which she is entitled to express as part of her right to freedom of speech.

She had no way of knowing that she would win the Democratic nomination for president, or if she will win the presidency in two days, on November 8th. If she is to win the presidency and to carry out her "promises," she is fully entitled to do so, as they are part of her vision for America, a vision which she has developed during decades of public service in various capacities. The fact that Goldman Sachs and others agree with parts or all aspects of her vision is why they would invite her to speak to begin with; it is not because they somehow believe they can dictate what her vision should be.

Beyond the profound qualitative ethical & moral edge she possesses, she is ready to govern on day one; he, however, is the least qualified person to ever run for president.

Azzam S. Elayan
November 6, 2016