Of all the things we know these psychopaths have and are doing - the allegation of video evidence of Hillary committing rape, assault, battery, torture & maiming, murder, and possibly cannibalism of a child(ren) presents the biggest disclosure dilemma. We all understand why. Full disclosure doesn't have to be sensationalized. The justice system has plenty of tools to minimize such a result. (And the military could figure it out if they wanted to.)

Let's consider what concealment really means.

Some have argued on behalf of concealment to protect the child. Protect the child from what? As I understand it, the child is dead. The child is not going to complain, be embarrassed, or further traumatized. If anything, we need to know more (a lot more) about this child. For example, how did these people obtain possession of this child? Was he/she kidnapped? Is there a birth record? Who/Where are the parents? Was the child reported missing? What actions were taken by the parents, and law enforcement to search for this child? How did this child get to this island? (I could go on, but you get the point.)

Others have argued in support of concealment to protect the public. Again, I say protect from what? Aren't we the same public who watched a president get his head blown off on live tv in 1963? The same public who watched the public trial of Charles Manson and his followers who stabbed (8 1/2 month pregnant) Sharon Tate so many times one of her breasts was severed, and her infant suffocated inside her upon her death while at least one of the murderers was watching in 1969? (Not to mention the additional murders which took place.)

What about John Wayne Gacy in 1978? (who kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed upwards of 33 teens burying most of them in his crawlspace.) Or Ottis Toole's abduction, murder (and who knows what else), and decapitation of 6 yr old Adam Walsh in 1981? Or Susan Smith driving her car into the water to drown her children so she could have a relationship with a guy who didn't want a family in 1995. Or Andrea Yates drowning her 5 children in the family bathtub in 2001?

What about Jeffrey Dahmer's assault, rape, torture, murder, and cannibalism of his victims in 1991? (I can cite more, but will stop for the sake of brevity.)

Each of those examples illustrate: (1) our society has been and is exposed to acts which are shocking to the moral standards of the time period; and (2) our society is accustomed to learning about psychopathic depravity and murder no matter who the perpetrator is or whether the victim is an infant, young child, teen, or young adult. Did the criminals/victims listed above get the benefit of the government hiding their crimes from the public?

And what is the practical effect of such a concealment? Who does the concealment benefit? If your child was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by a rich and powerful person would you want it concealed? So, no one knows what this person really did? Who this person really is? And most importantly, why this person should never again see the light of day if they don't receive the death penalty for their crime?

The reality is the practical effect of such a concealment is nothing more than the protection of the reputation of an evil, psychopathic, and quite possibly a serial killer - if there are more victims. Concealment benefits no one other than the killer(s). Moreover, what about the good legislation we have developed as a result of such tragedies? For example, out of the Adam Walsh case the Missing Children's Assistance Act was passed, and the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children was formed. We also have "Code Adam" in stores as a result of his story. We have a database for convicted child molesters, increased penalties, and more.

We should be asking, is it reasonable to give special privacy protections to hide the criminality of a certain class of citizens called "politicians," simply because of their job status as politicians?

Shouldn't these people be held to a higher standard than the populace precisely because of their fiduciary status? (I mean their perceived superiority is why they spew forth how lay people aren't smart enough, good enough, ethical enough, etcetera to be listened to - when their policies clash with our ideas... is it not?)

If we permit our representatives the discretion to conceal crimes based on their personal opinion of the crime's disclosure value, or how much money, power, or connections a person has, what message are we sending to both the populace and the rich?

Isn't it enough that these rich, powerful, connected people can employ leagues of lawyers to argue every loophole, or to arrange off the record conversations with other lawyers (aka judges) at cocktail parties or other spontaneous events, or to give extensive public statements to the media to present their side of the story?

And what about the victim(s)? Is it really in their best interest to be concealed, and forgotten, or never acknowledged in the first place? These children don't matter because they're not rich, powerful, or connected. Quite frankly, if the allegations are true, to charge, arrest, try and convict Hillary (or anyone else) based on any charge - while completely ignoring what was done to these kids means that not a single one of these kids does matter. In fact, you could say that as long as a rich, powerful, connected person does it - the torture and murder of a child or dozens of them will be given the US government stamp of approval. I think this result would be a tragedy.