How can a person who is under an FBI investigation still feels that person has a right to be POTUS

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: musicismagic

In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty.

In Hillary's case, you're even innocent AFTER you're proven guilty.

Some people are above the law, we would be sitting in jail waiting for the hearing.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
Well, because until she is convicted, she is considered to be innocent.

I am sure anyone who has ever had a brush with the law could appreciate that.

And then there are the rest of you who ask these dumb ass questions like the title of this thread....

Not necessarily, many people languish in jail waiting to be found innocent or guilty.

a reply to: musicismagic

because you can run for president from prison and as others have noted she has YET to be convicted of anything so there is that as well. and even IF she is convicted she will be pardoned by obama so she can be potus as the democrats bluntly have picked her as the candidate

In the case of Clinton we are talking about an internal government debate on how certain emails are handled. Clinton is not the first Sec State nor other parts of the Gov that has had this system. Which is why most people do not care. At most we are talking a misdemeanor with small fine.

a reply to: MrSpad

Actually, you are wrong because Clinton is in fact the first SOS to conduct all government business on a private server. We're not talking about a handful of low classification emails using a commercial email account like gmail or yahoo, we're talking about over 30,000 work emails, 2,200 classified , 22 at least of which are TS or above, placed on a private server to avoid government oversight. There is no equivalence between what Clinton did and what other SOS's did.

She will be indicted. The FBI hasn't conducted year long criminal investigations on other government officials for this because other officials did not do this.

People get elected to various political posts while under investigation for indictment all the time. Is it right? Not necessarily, but at the same time, none of those people have been proven guilty or even charged with anything officially.

The outrage (or lack of) usually falls on the same old lines.

Person A supports Hillary: This is a witch hunt!
Person B does not support Hillary: This is an outrage! Jail the criminal!

Person A if the accused was the GOP candidate: This is an outrage! Jail the criminal!
Person B if the accused was the GOP candidate: This is a witch hunt!

originally posted by: musicismagic
For all reasonable hearsay, the mate of that person was able to keep going as the POTUS, so get my drift guys.

Because it's the boy who cried wolf. This is yet another Republican driven political assassination attempt against Hillary. There may even be something to this one but people just don't care, we've been listening to scandals involving this woman for 20 years and nothing has stuck. It comes across as a cheap way to try and get her out of the race.

On her end, what if she really hasn't done anything wrong? Why shouldn't she stay in the race?

On the other hand, what if she did to something wrong? Pulling out would be a way of admitting guilt, and guilt in this case means prison time. It's not something she could do.