- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 10,257
- Reaction score
- 4,161
- Location
- Washington, D.C.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
This is a political strategy thread:
The Trump DoJ has had two years to sift through the information regarding H. Clinton's "emailgate" matter and hasn't indicted her. One must, given all the acrimony and argy-bargy over the criminality of her "emailgate-related" actions, why. The reasons why are simple: (1) there's no legal "there" there and (2) more importantly to Trump and Republican politically savvy strategists, it's politically unwise and fruitless to do so.
Despite Trump and Trumpkins adamantine insistence that Hillary Clinton committed culpable criminal acts and should thus be charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and, thus, locked-up, I doubt whatever the Admin. does will go so far as a trial. I think that because the political value of the recriminations against Hillary disappear if Clinton prevails at trial.
The American public is, sadly yet generally, of the mind that if one is under investigation, one did indeed do something wrong. Prosecutors and investigators know that's not so, but that they do isn't the point, for most Americans aren't prosecutors, attorneys and/or professional criminal investigators.
Accordingly, if "emailgate" were, by the Trump Administration, brought to trial and Clinton is found not-guilty, bye-bye goes the legitimacy of a central "leg" of Trump and Trumpkins' argument against Clinton. Politically speaking, far more efficacious is it to leave the matter "unresolved" and in the semi-limbo state in which it now sits, for in that status, the trope serves as a rallying cry and it diminishes the viability of a third H. Clinton run for the WH.
ETA:
Why did I create this thread?
The Trump DoJ has had two years to sift through the information regarding H. Clinton's "emailgate" matter and hasn't indicted her. One must, given all the acrimony and argy-bargy over the criminality of her "emailgate-related" actions, why. The reasons why are simple: (1) there's no legal "there" there and (2) more importantly to Trump and Republican politically savvy strategists, it's politically unwise and fruitless to do so.
Despite Trump and Trumpkins adamantine insistence that Hillary Clinton committed culpable criminal acts and should thus be charged, prosecuted, found guilty, and, thus, locked-up, I doubt whatever the Admin. does will go so far as a trial. I think that because the political value of the recriminations against Hillary disappear if Clinton prevails at trial.
The American public is, sadly yet generally, of the mind that if one is under investigation, one did indeed do something wrong. Prosecutors and investigators know that's not so, but that they do isn't the point, for most Americans aren't prosecutors, attorneys and/or professional criminal investigators.
Accordingly, if "emailgate" were, by the Trump Administration, brought to trial and Clinton is found not-guilty, bye-bye goes the legitimacy of a central "leg" of Trump and Trumpkins' argument against Clinton. Politically speaking, far more efficacious is it to leave the matter "unresolved" and in the semi-limbo state in which it now sits, for in that status, the trope serves as a rallying cry and it diminishes the viability of a third H. Clinton run for the WH.
ETA:
Why did I create this thread?
- Because I've noticed rumblings about Hillary running yet again. So long as the "emailgate" matter remains 'unresolved," it can be used against her. Once it's resolved, it cannot. And, as we know, a Republican FBI Director decided the matter lacked prosecutorial merit because the investigation could find no cogent/sound evidence supporting the mens rea assertion prosecutors would have to probatively show at trial.
Last edited: