Originally Posted by Guest

there is a penalty to pay.
In corporate America it can be as drastic as losing one's job.

In politics it is not the same. Why is that?

Because they are either law degreed or have sufficient wealth to employ lawyers to make it go away. Or re-word it so as to reflect nothing more than honorable intentions.

And now with Clinton's latest rule break it has become all about why did she do it? Did she hide something? Was there a breach of security?

And while we are all focused on that string distractions how conveniently the entire system glides right past the fact she in fact violated the system and routines spelled out BY THE GOVERNMENT she supposedly represented?

Just another case of selective enforcement.

With her track record, such as it is, including having lost the nomination in 2008 to an unknown newcomer, plus all the questionable issues as secretary of state, why is the democratic party letting her railroad the system to the point of being candidate of the party?

She has proven time and again over the years to be suspect in many issues that involve not being in compliance with the laws or procedures.

Let us just see if this thread will allow opportunity for reasoning and discussion why she is or is not worthy.

Without the name calling, blaming and derogatory sniping that seems to prevail. Contrary to what the anagonistic posters would like us to believe, one can have their belief and support and also others who may have a difference of opinion.

Let us see if a dialogue will be permitted.