Donald Trump is unfit to president, according to an historic editorial from USA Today published Friday, as well as a number of other newspapers and political leaders. But does that mean Hillary Clinton is qualified?
Much of the focus this election cycle has been on the many ways Trump presents an unprecedented lack of qualifications for the presidency, but Clinton by no means has a perfect record. While some of the scandals she has had to endure are completely bogus — there is no evidence to back up the rumors she is in poor health — trust remains an issue with voters. Just 36 percent of surveyed voters in a McClatchy-Marist poll released last week said Clinton was honest and trustworthy.
Here are 4 criticisms even left-leaning media organizations have made of Clinton:
The Email Scandal
Sure, Bernie Sanders and many other people may be sick of hearing about it, but polls show Clinton's use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state remains a glaring concern to nearly half of all voters. And while there is no proof there was any malicious intent behind the practice and the FBI has declared there is no cause to press criminal charges against Clinton, her treatment of classified information was deemed "extremely careless" by FBI director James Comey. Even The Huffington Post, which goes as far as to add editorial notes bashing Trump's racism and misogyny at the bottom of its election articles, recently published an op-ed about why the email scandal matters.
"Like the greater part of my readers, I do not want Donald Trump to become president, but that should not stop us from being honest about the putative Democratic nominee," Eli Zaretsky wrote in June for Huffington Post. "Clinton’s actions have corrupted the public record covering her term as secretary of state. Thus, while she has released 55,000 emails from her tenure, we have no way of knowing whether this is all of them, other than her word, which in my view has proven untrustworthy, but in any event is not sufficient. In fact, other emails have surfaced, which she did not release. As a professional historian, I am alert to the profound significance of this fact."
The Clinton Foundation
Clinton has come under fire over her family's charity organization's not-exactly-transparent practices. A set of more than 500 pages of state department emails made public by Judicial Watch earlier this month suggest that at least some of the nearly $2 billion the Clinton Foundation has raised from U.S. corporations, foreign governments and corporations, political donors, and various other groups was collected in exchange for special access while Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state. Trump has alleged that the emails are proof of Clinton's corruption.
While The New York Times editorial board, which endorsed Clinton this month, does not go that far, they called the Clinton Foundation a black mark on her record and urged her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to cut all ties with the organization.
"It would send a signal that Mrs. Clinton and her family have heard the concerns of critics and supporters and will end any further possibility for the foundation to become a conduit to the White House for powerful influence seekers," the board wrote.
The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council, the union representing thousands of federal officers in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), formally endorsed Trump this week, citing the alleged threat to national security posed by Clinton's plans. While Trump plans to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, end government aid to undocumented immigrants and deport the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S., Clinton opposes such a wall and has advocated for a path to citizenship for many of the families that have been in the U.S. for years.
"Donald Trump reached out to us for a meeting, sat down with me to discuss his goals for enforcement, and pledged to support ICE officers, our nation’s laws and our members. In his immigration policy, he has outlined core policies needed to restore immigration security," The ICE union's statement read. "Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has promised the most radical immigration agenda proposal in U.S. history. Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders."
She Is A Hawk
Donald Trump is not on record opposing the invasion of Iraq before it happened, no matter what he says, but Clinton is the one who actually voted for the polarizing war. Trump's potential recklessness in foreign policy aside, from Iraq to Libya, Clinton has showed a penchant for intervention that has many voters wary.
The New York Times published a major piece in April, called "How Hillary Clinton Became A Hawk," analyzing Clinton's foreign policy perspective.
"[Her aggressiveness militarily] will likely set her apart from the Republican candidate she meets in the general election," Mark Landler wrote. "Neither Donald J. Trump nor Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas have demonstrated anywhere near the appetite for military engagement abroad that Clinton has."
For many on the left hoping to avoid putting troops on the ground in another war and for many on the right embracing the wave of nationalism sweeping through the party — Trump has implied he would be willing to back out of international agreements like NATO — Clinton's hawkishness is a concern. In April, Clinton's Democratic primary opponent, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, told NBC’s "Meet the Press" that Clinton's track record of advocacy for military intervention meant "something is clearly lacking" in her judgment, adding "I have my doubts about what kind of president she would make."