Setting A Double Standard, Conservatively

THERE IS A POSSIBILITY, albeit a remote one, that an American conservative exists who is sufficiently conversant with the underlying principles of fundamental jurisprudence to be aware that in the United States of America, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that this proof must be presented in a legitimate court of law,must result in a conviction according to due process, and upheld upon any future appeal. Yet, it seems improbable. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, both of whom used private email addresses while serving as Secs of State, have never been accused of or investigated for possible criminal behavior while serving. Where are their conservative critics, accusers, and investigators? Can you for even a moment imagine conservative republicans dragging Powell or Rice into a congressional committee room for interrogation concerning their email servers, and what they might or might have sent and received over them? Or insisted upon their being investigated by the FBI, and, upon their being cleared by the agency, accusing the FBI of having been corrupted somehow by those being investigated? Or, for that matter, what if the president were a conservative republican, and, during her final year in office, nominated for the Supreme Court a conservative judge? Can you remotely imagine a conservative congress refusing to give the nominee a fair hearing, instead insisting that the new justice should be nominated by the next president, since the current one had less than a year in office? What if Obama had nominated a conservative judge, rather than a moderate one? Would she have been given a chance? Allegedly the investigation into Hillary Clinton's email practices was done as a matter of principle, as a means of upholding the law. Similarly, the claim was made that the refusal to grant Obama's nominee to the high court was based on principle, not partisan politics. Suppose it Hillary Clinton refused to disclose her income tax returns, using the tenuous reason that her taxes were being audited, even while the IRS was explaining that a tax audit was no impediment to disclosure. Can you hear the conservatives crying foul, and accusing her of concealing something? If Hillary had declared bankruptcy on several occasions, and had used her bankruptcies and business losses as shelters against the future payment of income tax, how would her opponents respond? With sustained and vociferous expressions of contempt and accusations of criminal behavior, one might suspect. And perhaps, in this theoretical set of circumstances, her supporters would be reacting much as Donald trump's are now, with questionable justifications. They might even be calling her a "genius" for failing to pay taxes though quite wealthy. Human beings are by nature biased, and incapable of critical thinking when confronted with decisions which directly effect themselves.That is why "critical thinking", which is nothing other than intelligent, objective, reasoning, is so very rare in American politics, and everywhere else, and why it must be taught in schools as a formal discipline. We are constrained by our biases, which are based on our will to survive and prevail, but we are better prepared to transcend the limits of our lack of objectivity if we at least realize that we are burdened by it.........PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH OTHERS. THANKS!