Editor’s Alert: At time of publication, Hillary Clinton was not indicted by the FBI over mishandling classified emails.

This conforms to what we have expected and additionally seems to make clear that she will indeed be the next President of the United States.

Enormous political capital has been expended on ensuring her innocence. It is surely unlikely that the elite establishment, having produced this outcome, will allow the election to go forward without Hillary victory.

The result of this FBI decision will not just involve a probable Hillary presidential victory, it will also ensure that the sociopolitical instability of the US will grow.

There will be a dramatic expansion of US debt, an explosion of regulatory activity and, most likely, serious conflicts overseas that may escalate into a kind of world war.

The

President Hillary Clinton?’ She Wants Progress on Immigration and to Drink With G.O.P. “Her greatest strength is that she really listens to people, she understands what their political and policy needs are, and she tries to find that space where you can compromise,” said Neera Tanden, a former top domestic policy adviser to Mrs. Clinton who is now the president of the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning policy institute. – New York Times

An astonishing article recently appeared in the New York Times portraying Hillary Clinton as someone who would calm Washington’s endless polarization.

The idea of Hillery as a peace-maker, coming at a time when a new “insider” book reports on her penchant for throwing Bibles and punching Bill in the face, is surely an innovative effort.

Over 30-years of reports, anecdotes, lawsuits and first-hand testimony paint Hillary as manipulative.

She appears to have no compunction about injuring others professionally, socially and even physically if it will advance her goals.

More:

Deeply confident that she would perform better as the president than as a political candidate, Mrs. Clinton wants to pursue a whole new approach at the White House to try to break through years of partisan gridlock.

Should she win the presidency, Hillary Clinton would quickly try to find common ground with Republicans on an immigration overhaul and infrastructure spending, risking the wrath of liberals who would like nothing more than to twist the knife in a wounded opposition party.

In her first 100 days, she would also tap women to make up half of her cabinet in hopes of bringing a new tone and collaborative sensibility to Washington, while also looking past Wall Street to places like Silicon Valley for talent — perhaps wooing Sheryl Sandberg from Facebook, and maybe asking Tim Cook from Apple to become the first openly gay cabinet secretary.

What’s clever about this positioning is that it presents government activism as proof of Hillary’s conciliatory instincts.

Government is force. And the US is the most forceful empire that has ever existed.

There is little about the US government these days that seems to conform to what many Americans actually want – less war, fewer regulations, less centralization of power.

But this New York Times article is presenting the thesis that Hillary will be forceful in her use of fedgov power and will be able to do so because she is a “schmoozer.”

Picture a steady stream of senators, congressmen and other leaders raising a glass and talking policy in the Oval Office with her and her likely chief of staff, John D. Podesta, as her husband pops in with a quick thought or a disarming compliment.

Actually, this is a deeply concerning picture. The US does not need an “effective” president.

When it comes fedgov especially, what the US needs is dysfunction, gridlock and incompetence. Even corruption is preferable to efficiency if it blunts the enormous power of Washington DC.

But the reason that the “deep state” wants Hillary as president is because she will not be shy about using the power that comes with the office.

It is this deep state that values Hillary’s activism, especially when it comes to war.

She is perfectly comfortable exercising the vast force of the US.

Back in February, the leftist Huffington Post ran an article entitled Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine.

There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.

Reason Magazine has just posted on article on Hillary’s continued hawkishness:

Then there is Hillary Clinton, who will be this year’s nominee. Few Democrats have more consistently favored the use of military force. She voted for the Iraq War. As secretary of state, she urged President Obama to escalate the war in Afghanistan.

She pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya. She proposed similar action in Syria. She has recounted her advice to her husband in dealing with Serbia in 1999: “I urged him to bomb.” … Despite the disaster in Iraq, the failure in Afghanistan and the chaos in Libya, she remains a hawk at heart.

Currently, Hillary seems to be a supporter of a deeper war in Syria, and further confrontation with Russia, perhaps leading to direct conflict between US and Russian troops.

The Times article points out that Hillary is committed to erasing the “caricature” of herself as a “partisan warrior,” – a “feminazi.” But this conciliatory approach doesn’t extend to violence abroad.

Conclusion: Ms. Clinton intends to use federal government activism to prove she can work in a bipartisan manner. But if she gets into office, Washington’s warmongering will not abate and may quickly turn into something worse.