Let's put our heads together on the Clinton e-mail scandal

[paulthompson]

157. Maybe

You may be right. However, I think if it's a case of C and D, she's going to be sunk anyway.

Keep in mind that as a major political player for decades, Clinton has made many friends, but she's also made many enemies. Trump has already said he's going to make a big deal out of this scandal in the general election. And that makes perfect sense. I think it would be an utter disaster if Trump ever becomes president. But, looking at things from his point of view, he has no realistic chance of winning the election (his negative ratings are way too high) UNLESS he can make hay out of this scandal. He can argue, "You may not like me, but at least I'm not soon to be a jailed felon."

Democrat powers-that-be can't be oblivious to this. They certainly don't want Trump as president, and they know that if the evidence against Clinton is strong, the entire Republican side will push this story as hard as they can. But there's still a chance for the Democrats to go with someone else, like Sanders. (They also could try to get someone else to use Clinton's delegates, like Biden, perhaps.)

That said, I think there's a good chance the FBI WILL recommend Clinton for indictment. The reason? Mainly the fact that Comey is head of the FBI. He's a right-winger. Obama has had a habit of appointing or keeping right wingers in the top posts of the military and intelligence agencies, and maybe that will come back to bite him here (since he clearly wants Clinton to succeed him). It sucks that people are so predictably partisan, but they are. Just look at the nakedly political 5-4 Supreme Court decision of Gore vs. Bush that decided the 2000 elecction. In that case, the key decision making body had a majority of right wingers. In this case, the key decision maker, Comey, is a right winger.

Furthermore, Comey is known to be a stickler for the law. Recall his whole role in the 2004 Ashcroft hospital incident, where he stuck his neck out and threatened to resign if Bush didn't follow the letter of the law. If he did that with a Republican president, why wouldn't he do that with a Democratic one? Also, He's like an attack dog that won't let go after he finds his target. He has a history of prosecuting cases based on rather minor technicalities, and if you look at the letter of the law in this case, there's no doubt Clinton broke a number of laws. It's just that a lot of people are assuming the FBI will go easy on her due to her political power.

Check out the New York Post article in post #104 of this thread. True, that's a questionable source, but still, it's worth noting that it claims to have inside sources who say there would be a mass resignation of FBI agents, possibly including Comey, if Clinton's indictment doesn't go forward.

To me, it all comes down to if the evidence is significant or not. The Republicans tried hard to use Benghazi to sink Clinton's career, but that failed because there wasn't much there (or if there was, the Republicans didn't find it). Despite Fox News pushing the story nearly 24 hours a day, it failed to sway many people beyond the usual die-hards because people could see it was a witch hunt without substance.

I predict it won't be long before the gist of the evidence in this scandal becomes public (through media leaks, through high-ranking Republicans with security clearances talking who have seen the evidence, through official FBI sources, etc). Then it will be up to the general public to decide. I don't think it's possible for Clinton to put the genie back in the bottle at this point. She may run out the clock in terms of legal proceedings for this election, but not in terms of information reaching the public.

We'll see soon enough. It can't be denied we're in totally uncharted waters. No major presidential candidate has ever been in this much legal trouble while an election's going on, so anything could happen.