This is Hillary Clinton’s problem, in a nutshell.

We know two things:

  1. Hillary Clinton should be indicted.  No, seriously. She is long past the point where most people would have been indicted.  If her name was, say, Martha Libby – and, more importantly, if she was not the presumptive Democratic front-runner – then Hillary Clinton would be rapidly approaching her trial date by now. If she is not indicted, there is going to be a godawful feces-storm that will stretch out into the term of the next administration – and quite possibly the administration after that.
  2. Hillary Clinton will not be indicted.

Here’s the thing: I don’t know a partisan Republican who is professionally upset that Hillary Clinton will not be indicted.  We all want her to be indicted, sure.  And we’re personally appalled that she won’t be.  But in terms of our jobs we can all see the silver lining in that particular cloud.  And we won’t feel guilty about it, either.  After all, it’s not like we can indict her anyway.

18 thoughts on “This is Hillary Clinton’s problem, in a nutshell.”

  1. “I don’t know a partisan Republican who is professionally upset that Hillary Clinton will not be indicted.”
    Yet ANOTHER reason why Trump is crushing the GOP field.

    1. Bingo.
      Every Republican candidate should have already promised to refer the case to the DOJ for prosecution as their very first order of business.
      But they haven’t.

      1. No, Trump is my fault. Remember, all of us foes of Hillary are a vast right wing conspiracy. I’ve been telling all you moderate and lefty rightwingers that we should not be trying to execute Hillary, Barack, or Patrick Hayden.

      2. No, you get a pass, Moe.

        But our Congress critters should be out there demanding that the LAWS of America be enforced- for everyone, rich or poor. It’s obvious that the Democrats in all of our hallowed government agencies believe that they’re above the law. Their base thinks the same way.

        Some would say this was Bush’s fault, and there is some truth there. Hillary should have been have a long, long time ago…

    2. We don’t have the votes or the influence. The only way she is going to end up killed is a) civil war b) the Democrats lynch her.
      Read the first speech against Cataline. Cicero was an optimist. He thought that giving Cataline enough rope to hang himself wouldn’t incite factionalism. He also didn’t realize that Roman power politics had already poisoned the well decades back. When political success is the difference between respectable policy and capital treason charges, people escalate to civil wars, which suck.
      Furthermore, if Republican candidates promise to get her, she has incentives to go all out. Leave her a golden path to retreat, and she may not react as if to an existential threat. The Democrats going all in might implode, or might manage to steal the election.
      Consider also that the people I think might be justly put to death are estimated to number in the millions. Hillary is one more, albeit significant. There is a non-trivial chance that you, jetty, should be glad that you are not subject to what my sense of justice would consider fit.

      1. Yet the fact remains that if you or I did what Hillary did, we would be imprisoned for the rest of our lives.
        Which would have a significant chance of being cut short by execution.
        And you are very much mistaken. A Republican President *could* order the DOJ to prosecute her. And should.
        It’s not like we’d have to round up votes for impeachment.
        And if Hillary has more influence with a Republican President than “we” do, a civil war is all but assured.

      2. This line of rationalization, which McConnell,, always bring up, is why the GOPe is despised. They stand for nothing (other than self-promotion).

    3. Moe’s clear point was that the Democrats allowing Hillary Clinton to get away with anything she wants will bounce to the benefit of Republicans. You can be upset with this as an American, and as a human being with a soul…and still be able to recognize that it will hurt your opponents far more than you.
      His point was not, as you and Luke both seem to think, that “professional Republicans” are happy because Hillary’s getting away with this means they’ll be able to get away with something too. Some of them — the majority, I hope — are simply too moral to think that way. The rest understand that they won’t have the advantage of willing press agents running interference for them come January of 2017.

      1. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
        I have not speculated as to why the Republican candidates have failed to promise to refer the case to the DOJ for prosecution.
        I only noted that they have not.
        That they should have.
        And that their not doing so reflects poorly on them.
        Were I to speculate, it would be to accuse them of lacking a spine, not because they’ll somehow receive a “get out of jail free” card out of it.
        I don’t believe that they would ever have the audacity to try and follow in Hillary’s footsteps.

        1. I didn’t put words in your mouth. I said “seem to think,” not “think” by itself, and certainly not “say.” As it turns out, Moe is talking about a much wider range of people than you are — I think. Professional Republicans can include everyone from Senators and Congressmen, to staffers, to K-Streeters, and so on.
          If we confine ourselves just to a discussion of the candidates, you are wrong. It is both improper and politically unwise to commit to a prosecution of the person who may be your opponent in a few months. (Admittedly, it looks like only Trump, Cruz, and Rubio really need to worry about what is politically unwise. Everyone else looks more done than burnt toast.) It is improper because they risk looking as though they have prejudged the case, which — as a potential president — would call into question the impartiality of our system of justice under their administration. It is politically unwise because — well, to quote Sun Tzu, “Attack the enemy where he is unprepared.” Announce your intentions so openly, so nakedly, and you risk giving Hillary time to assemble whatever she needs to ensure that your victory is a Pyrrhic one.
          Is Hillary guilty? Sure looks that way to me. Should she be indicted? Beyond a doubt, at this point. But I’m in a position to say that, because I’m a private citizen and no one really gives a damn about what I think. Presidential candidates should (and, except for Trump, mostly do) be held to a higher standard of decorum. And they damn well should be poker players enough not to flash their hole cards just to mock the other people at the table. I find it telling that even Trump, whom I would normally think couldn’t resist this golden opportunity for a soundbite, has resisted it so far. Since he’s not much on decorum, and since no one has ever accused him of cowardice when it comes to speaking his mind, I am forced to conclude that even he recognizes the imprudence of announcing that Hillary’s days of freedom would be numbered if he could command DOJ.

          1. What I meant in that last paragraph:
            “Presidential candidates should be (and, except for Trump, mostly are) held to a higher standard…”
            And that’s what I get for splicing two thoughts together without checking the transitions. ABE — always be editing.

          2. The higher standards they’re expected to be held to are Truth and Justice.
            Both demand a denunciation of Hillary as the criminal that she is.
            Shirking from that responsibility is not wisdom, but cowardice.

  2. I read Tucker Carlson’s opinion column at Politico.
    I thought it very good.
    I wonder when his neighbors and colleagues are going to wake up? That they have enjoyed the privileges that come with being “noblesse” without performing the duties that accompany “oblige”? That others that have performed their side of the deal are now fed up? That they should offer a sacrifice to keep the barbarians from doing what they are thinking about doing?

    Why not sacrifice Hillary? Why not sacrifice her entire over-age and worn-out cabal of sleazers and slimers? Why not purge that crowd utterly and create more space for people who – while they may not be technically honorable – they certainly have not done THAT?

    Why not? What is Hillary to them or they to Hillary that they should weep for her?

    “She is looking awfully tired, isn’t she?”

  3. i am not so sure she won’t be indicted. Barack hates her and if she starts losing he’ll make a phone call. he has a phone, as he’s told us.

    1. She was his bagman. Think they both don’t have tons of blackmail on each other?
      If she can’t look forward to living freely on her ill-gotten gains, she has no incentive not to take him with her.
      She tells the public he was trying incompetently to overthrow the Mexican government, and put narcoterrorists like El Chapo in power, the Mexican nationalists will hate him, and he won’t be able to rake in as much off the speaking circuit.

      1. I agree with Antoninus although I think Barack detests Hillary, he reserves his hate for Republicans. I believe the FBI will ask for a Grand Jury and O’bama and Lynch will be more than happy to go the Pontius Pilate route.

Comments are closed.