rather long piece. Nixon's crime was the coverup - I'm not even convinced that he knew about the break in before hand. Nixon resigned, people were angry. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, people became even angrier.

The Clinton's have weathered one impeachment for Bill, do they think they could weather a second for Hillary? Maybe Hillary believes she could become president before this cat is out of the bag and somehow contain it. Who knows what they think. My biggest problem with both Clinton's is that they show an amazing lack of common sense. They have spent years denying situations that most people, particularly attorneys, would avoid. Yet, the Clinton's rush in, convinced that they can manage all.

The fact that she went to the trouble of setting up her private system in light of becoming Secretary of State, alone is a huge red flag, no matter how she protests. The fact that classified information was passed around on Hillary's private email account makes me wonder if it was made available to the benefactors of the Clinton Global Initiative. The whole thing stinks, and is standard operating procedure for a woman who would be president. A woman who grudgingly admits that she has "made mistakes". Unfortunately, the mistakes she has made have been whoppers, not easily dismissed. I think she disqualifies herself.

"Like I said, it's something or nothing."

The problem being the GOP is expert at making something from nothing, and however this turns out it's more than nothing, which is plenty enough for the GOP to make a mountain out of it.

first, it is way too long and since this isn't a mystery novel, the main premise should be upfront and clear. it isn't.

some of the issues I have with this piece: the author talks about Clinton deleting her e-mails and, according to Clinton in an interview with Andrea Mitchell, she said her attorneys deleted the e-mails.

there is also some discussion of marked or unmarked classifications and intent. Intentional or unintentional, mishandling of marked or UNMARKED classified material is a crime. It should have also been made clearer in the piece that Clinton is one the few people who gets to determine the classification of material. So, in this case, it isn't really a matter of retro classification (meaning a non classified doc gets classified or an unclassified doc is once again retro classified)... this is a matter of retroactively marking docs that were classified (but unmarked) at inception.

Why is this distinction important? Because Clinton was responsible to know the difference, marked or unmarked.

the last point: from what I've read and heard in interviews, the original sin is the server. Hillary maintains this was permissible but how is that possible? It isn't. and what is or is not the gov'ts case is simply speculation unless we know for sure there is a sitting grand jury on this case (we might be able to assume there is, but there is no PUBLIC declaration of such). And about some of the writer's references to "grand jury":

"If this case is prosecuted and heard by a grand jury..." and "what I think a grand jury could also find her guilty of is a felony." Grand juries can indict someone but members do not judge guilt or innocence, they simply agree there is enough evidence to send the case forward to a trial.

having said all that, I think the writer undertook a daunting task and I don't mean to diminish her effort. but as with everything around Hillary Clinton, we must be as brief and complete and clear as possible. She is a genius at one thing: NOISE. you can't counter her noise by making the same noise.

just sayin.

what is critical is that she is put on trial for this and held accountable. and then maybe we can go after Wall Street and Gov. Snyder et al. the breakdown of our society and the biggest threat to this world is our lack of will to hold the powerful accountable. it is the only way to stop them. consequence. hard time. losing everything. no entitlement.

i mean think about the Gov. of Michigan knowingly poisoning people . . . he obviously didn't think he'd have to pay for it. And that we as a country haven't gone completely berserk over it still amazes me. i can't get people on my FB feed to share it or even comment on it... can you imagine?

now i'm rambling again.

they had to make some tough choices and they have families who might read criticism and they'd be hurt by such.

I disagree though that he will gain effectiveness through this presidential run. People are vindictive, and he has exposed many of them for just what they are. Do you really think that after he has been saying for a year the politicians have been bought and paid for that many of those people (who endorsed HRC) are going to make an honest effort to work with him or for the policies he advocates? Sure he plays well with others, but others don't play well with him.

Previous people who have run for president and returned to the Senate/House have been able to do so because they did not rock the boat during the election cycle. Sanders not only rocked the boat, he overturned it so we can see what has been growing underneath it.

are not based on HRC gaining the WH, but on her being indicted after the primaries and someone else (Biden, whomever) being put in her place over Sanders. I do not think anyone can see Sanders with a position in her administration unless she can get her hands on a guillotine. Then his position would be kneeling in front of it...for a few minutes anyway.