Those with criminal intent think differently about some things than most of the rest of us. For instance, when the word ‘best’ is used in comparing lawmen (or lawwomen) or politicians, most of us look to the lawman with the track record of honesty and justice, and the politician with a history of trustworthiness and support of the Constitution. But criminals have a different take on the word ‘best.’ In the hit movie Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, criminal Butch (actor Paul Newman) asks comrade criminal Sundance (actor Robert Redford) who the best lawman is. Sundance replies with a clarifying question, as the word could have opposing meanings based on the context, “The best, how? You mean toughest, or easiest to bribe?”

It is perfectly logical to recognize that those with miscreant intent will think of the ‘best’ person, as in the best politician, as the one easiest to bribe. And bribe they will if they see an advantage or gain from a corrupt politician, especially if the deed will likely go undetected, and even if detected, will likely avoid prosecution.

All too often those who are deft at skirting the direct link of a quid pro quo in a bribery situation ‘get away with it.’ That does not mean that the persons involved are ethical or not actually guilty of a crime.

In the movie Training Day detective Alonzo Harris (played by Denzel Washington) quips to rookie Jake Hoyt (played by Ethan Hawke), “It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove.” Detective Harris refers to a situation in which Harris committed crimes but has stacked the chips on his side in order to evade discovery of his criminal activity. Even though Hoyt factually knows Harris is guilty of illegally killing a drug dealer and stealing over a million dollars, Harris states that his guys (other detectives working for Harris and who witnessed the illegal killing and thieving) will back him all the way and present the lie of events Harris has fabricated. Therefore, Hoyt lacks evidentiary or witness “proof” that Harris is guilty.

In the circumstances surrounding Hillary Clinton’s alleged practice of selling access and influence -- bribery -- the slippery Clintons may have succeeded over time in stacking the chips on their side.  People are correct in wanting to get to the bottom of the enormous amounts of money paid to the Clintons for speaking fees and contributed to the so-called charitable foundation they run, especially by sources with possible conflicts of interest and by foreign corporations and governments. Much of the cash was received from entities that were simultaneously lobbying the government for some favorable action, as reported by the Washington Examiner.

Amid all the Clinton’s questionable activities are there traceable and provable quid pro quos? Or, as many wonder, has all the damaging evidence (such as emails) been erased and knowledgeable persons persuaded to keep silent?  And even if some tit-for-tat transactions are found but direct criminal intent is not incontestable such that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case” (to quote FBI Director James Comey in giving Clinton a pass regarding her most recent email scandal), does that equate to her innocence?

Or, instead, does it simply mean that the Clintons have devised a cagey scheme of circumventing the law for vast personal gain while Hillary is, and may be in the future, a person in a position of trust? Many see the Clintons as having slithered through the slimy weeds of deceit and ill-gotten gains for decades now, undoubtedly learning a thing or two along the way while honing their nefarious skills to art-form perfection.

If it were simply a case of one or two outlying instances of questionable circumstance in otherwise unblemished and virtuous political careers, that would be one thing. But the magnitude of out and out lies, deceit, and furtive dealings involving the Clintons are notorious and present a consistent pattern spanning no less than decades. This longstanding pattern provides credence to the idea of a Clinton master plan of voracious self enrichment at the expense of everything and everyone; national security, ethics and laws be damned.

Hillary now wants to get her hands on the most powerful position in the world, the U.S. presidency. Once a person is elected to a position of public trust, as in the President of the United States, we are very much at the mercy of what we expect to be the honorable intentions of that responsible elected official. With all the deceitful baggage Hillary would be carrying to that office, who could possibly be confident in her sense of honor? Her trustworthiness ratings while campaigning are nothing to be proud of and show that perhaps most people still believe in consequence and logic, not in Hillary’s self-ordained entitlement to be crowned head of this country.

Logic, in fact, drives us to ask: 1) whether the Clintons are truly filled with the spirit of charity when so little of their foundation money is actually used for charity and; 2) whether they are blessed with such insight and intellect, and are such dynamic speakers that their numerous huge speaking fees and timing of those fees are justified. Undoubtedly what has been seen publically from those two would fail to produce anything beyond a moderate speaking income in any rational world. But who are we to judge? Certain Wall Street banks, financial institutions and foreign corporations and governments must think Hillary and Bill are the tops. With all the hundreds of millions they have sloshed to the Clinton Foundation and with speaking fees totaling close to $153 million the Clintons must be outstanding if not the very best. But as in the movie when Sundance replies to Butch, best in what context?

Gary Hancock is a retired corporate director of contracts for the defense industry and is now a commentator and author. His first book is Sustaining Liberty: And Reclaiming Limited Government in America.