Why should we follow the law if Hillary Clinton doesn’t have to?
Aug 31, 2016, 4:54 PM
Employees of notable Washington companies are among the most generous to the Clinton campaign -- including Amazon, Starbucks, Microsoft, and Boeing. (AP)
(AP)
The head of the FBI, James Comey, is a smart investigator and he looks at cases in a similar way to a journalist. When Comey made his statements to the media, he described multiple felonies, possibly in the hundreds, against Hillary Clinton. But he said no reasonable prosecutor would indict her.
That was code.
Comey said that Hillary had no “intent” to break the law. But intent is not part of the espionage act. The FBI never asked Hillary why she had the home email servers. There were no questions why she went to all this trouble to have her own email server.
Why didn’t the FBI pursue this further?
Comey and Hillary are doing great in their careers. Comey could have hurt her during the FBI investigation. But Hillary could really hurt Comey if she becomes the president.
And the question then becomes: if Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to follow the law, why should we? If the FBI doesn’t follow the law, why should we?
Now with talk of Russia tampering with the U.S. election, Americans could be reasonably convinced that the elections will be stolen.
We are creating a low trust society. We need to combat this low trust or the country could begin to crumble.
