a reply to: watchitburn
While having this information is a good thing for those who do not like Clinton, the reality is that it was, in all sense, wrong. If this was done 2
months prior to the election, it would have been ok, even 30 days would have been edgy but not wrong. This was wrong straight forward, for it should
never have been let out, for it can be construed as trying to influence the elction and that is where it gets to be wrong.
The other part about this that we should be disturbed about is this: Let say for argument sake, the police come to your house and come in, then in
the process there, they notice something that could be illegal, and then without proof or a warrant, without even probable cause, they make a big deal
about it and then get a warrant, knowing it could jeopardize your job, home and family, would you think it would be alright?
Many people’s lives have been ruined by allegations that were unfounded by evidence, and then how does one get a fair trial if everyone knows about
it before such. And there is the fact that the director of the FBI, answers to the Justice department. That is kind of like instead of going to your
boss or his boss, and going straight to the shareholders with a problem.
When it comes to criminal cases, the DA and police, only share with the defense attorney’s and not the news, cause they do not want to let out too
much or risk losing a case. And most do not speak about an active investigation. And at that time frame there was no investigation of Clinton on the
emails, that was all closed down in July.
That is exactly what all is going on here in this case, where we the people are being asked to judge someone, to make a decision on something with
little to no evidence of wrong doing. And one must ask this one question, if after millions of dollars spent, if after 30 years of investigations,
don’t you think that if there was wrong doing, they would have found it already? Think about it, for the past 30 years, this is a person who has
been investigated, looked at, checked out, and yet every time no one has been able to find anything concrete or show in a court that there was wrong
doing and a guilty verdict.
The question must be asked is this: If she is guilty why are those who have to do the investigations, doing such a poor job, why are they finding
nothing, and if she is innocent, why the political witch hunt against her, why are those who do not like her, so terrified of her? When running for
the Senate seat in New York, she was demonized then and then after getting into office, it went away. And if she was so objectionable, why was there
only 2 votes against her when she was confirmed to be Secretary of State?