As I think about yesterday’s announcement by head of the FBI that Hillary had done all the things she’d said she hadn’t, but would not be charged, my thoughts turned to the one time a liberal friend gave me an honest answer to a political question. The year was 2002.  Let me set the backdrop a bit before describing the question and answer.

The year was 2002, the month October.  George Bush had been President a little under 2 years.  The press had been doing full blown hatchet jobs on him for 2.5 years.  We were coming up on the midterm elections, where the incumbent party usually loses.  Democrats controlled the Senate but, to the shock of many, were looking to lose seats that year.  They were, in fact, expected to lose enough seats that Democrat control of the  Senate might be down to a 51-49 margin.
The incumbent Senator in New Jersey up for reelection was Bob Toricelli (aka The Torch).  Even in the highly liberal state of NJ, he was polling at about 35%—probably because he was under investigation for a slew of corruption charges.  Usually in such cases Democrats just hunker down and wait for the press to get interested in something else, but the election was too close and it was clear he would lose.  So he ‘took one for the team’ and cancelled his candidacy to give the Democrats room to put someone else quickly on the ballot.  They selected Frank Lautenberg.
Then the entire party discovered he had waited too late.  New Jersey law specifically states no new candidate can be placed on the ballot within 45 days of the election.  This is to allow time to print ballots, and mail them to people doing absentee voting in time for them to reasonably return them before election day.  45 days is actually a very short time.
The Dems sued, took it to the NJ supreme court, who ruled against their state constitution with the justification that it would not be democratic to hold an election and not have a Democrat on the ballot.
At this time I went to every liberal I knew (which was a good sized sample space), made sure they were aware of the background to the story, and asked their opinion of the NJ Supreme Court ruling.  All but one of them hemmed and hawed and refused to say anything was amiss.  This, despite the fact that every single one of them, two years earlier, had been frothing at the mouth that Bush was ‘selected not elected’.  Then there was the one liberal who gave an honest answer.  I’ll never forget it (heck, I can probably find the email in my archives).  He said, “yeah, they ignored the law.  But I don’t want Republicans getting control of the Senate, so I’m OK with it.”
Lautenberg was placed on the ballot and won his election (showing just how little a democrat has to do to get elected in NJ).  But more of the other Senate seats flipped than was expected, and Republicans gained control of the Senate anyway.
I haven’t spoken to that friend since that day, I don’t think I could stomach it.  I suppose if I did I might ask, “You were willing to ignore lawlessness for a political gain, but didn’t get that gain.  Do you have any idea what you lost?”
Then there were the myriad liberals who hemmed and hawed and tacitly approved of the lawlessness.  For them all, Party is more important than Principle.  Is it any wonder that, with an announcement Hillary would not be indicted, they instantly move on to ensuring her election rather that listening to the recitation of all her crimes and demanding her punishment?