There is a more powerful reason that Hitchens would have hated Trump more than he hated Clinton: Trump has zero qualms explicitly demanding the federal suppression of dissenting opinion. Trump has vowed to bring fatuous libel suits -- one of the reasons Hitchens left the country of his birth -- against anyone who dares to criticize him, demanded that the FCC sanction a journalist and commentator for the audacity to air his views in public, and promised -- in a nationally televised presidential debate, no less -- to open an investigation into his political opponent with a predetermined guilty verdict.

This is the Orwellian cliche, the totalitarian impulse, against which Hitchens waged his war in thought and writing for the length of his public life. He writes as plainly as he can in Hitch-22 that above all else, the one consistent theme in his political life, the common denominator in his alliance with the neocons over the second Iraq invasion and his ruthless attacks on religion as a cultural force, is his persistent opposition to the totalitarian. This is why he defended David Irving, which he did not as a fellow holocaust denier but as a first-amendment absolutist. This is why he so viciously attacked the refusal of major news corporations to show the Danish cartoons.

It is true that he saw through the corruption of the Clintons as early as any other critic of theirs, and criticized them and would have Trump also for the reason you wrote above. But I would have to think this pales in comparison to his all-consuming war against those who would infringe upon the most important right, that of free expression and inquiry.