Hillary Clinton Explains Why She Lost The Election Of 2016

In late May 2017 Mrs. Clinton gave an interview where she offered her opinions on why she lost the election. And, she is certainly has the absolute right to hold whatever opinion or opinions she holds dear.

Among several things she mentioned was the Russians’ hacking of John Podesta’s emails and, via Wikileaks, releasing the emails’ contents to the American people immediately prior to the election.

Now, as of June 1, 2017 there exists not one single piece of evidence (i.e., “proof”) that the Russians had anything to do with the information leaks.

What is clear, however, is that SOMEBODY hacked Podesta’s emails and, via Wikileaks, released the emails’ contents. And, hacking is, after all, illegal!

In almost all of my writings on things political, I offer that one should verify EVERYTHING - examine everything any politician says for validity.

One of the ways I follow my own advice is to apply syllogistic logic when possible. The first known use of syllogistoic logic was by Aristotle (384–322 BC).

For those not familiar with this logic “tool”, you may Click Here for a short introduction; then come back here.

Watch the pertinent portion of Mrs. Clinton's interview. After doing so we'll investigate what she actually implied - even if unwittingly.

Once again, no proof yet exists that the Russians had any involvement - direct or indirect - with hacking our election. BUT, as stated above, SOMEBODY did obtain Podesta's emails and release them to the American people just before the election.

Now, did such release of email data truly affect the outcome of the 2016 election? I feel that is highly unlikely. At the time just before the election people's minds were fairly well made up. Those who favored Mr. Trump would never vote for Mrs. Clinton; and, those who favored Mrs. Clinton would never vote for Mr. Trump. So, any wild swings in the results would seem very unlikely - almost no matter what the leaked data showed.

But, the point of this article is to investigate what Mrs. Clinton actually revealed in her interview - again, perhaps unwittingly.

We'll use syllogistic logic to investigate.

Let's start by offering Proposition #1 with a little explanation.

Next, here is Proposition #2.

Now, let's put Propositions #1 & #2 together and formulate a conclusion.

Obviously and logically, what Mrs. Clinton offered in her interview was not the message she intended - I'm certain. But, offer it she did for all to see if we looked and paid close attention.

Truly sad is the state of politics today; sad that someone would actually blame the truth for a defeat. And sad that people seem to have neither the time nor the inclination to research the information they are fed for accuracy and completeness.