I want to renew a call I made in the days just after the election, that trying and convicting Hillary Clinton for the long list of crimes she stands accused of doing may not be the best way to deal with her. Especially her legacy.
I mean this in the purest sense of wanting to punish her. Deterrence is not part of a my thinking here.
Parts of the conservative pundit class, Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity high among them, have been beside themselves that the FBI, still without a director and a new direction, and even Jeff Sessions himself, have not moved on Mrs Clinton for what are clearly crimes with an abundance of evidence.
But to what end?
Let Hillary be indicted and there will ten times the crowds at the courthouse to cheer her on than ever bothered to listen to one of her dreary speeches on the stump. Yes, they will be paid, but the optics will be all that matters in compiling an historic record.
Probably already heavily medicated, including various self-medications, and “feeling sorry for herself” does not even begin to describe Hillary sense of betrayal and loss. Right now her self-pity is limitless and she has not even begun the journey backwards in time to see where, or when, she went wrong. Self-reflection is not among her attributes.
But turn Hillary into a public martyr and she may well become refreshed and rise above her despondence, especially if she senses that even if convicted her punishment could end up with, at the worst, a short sentence at one of the feds’ more exclusive minimum security lock-ups, possibly home arrest, or maybe even probation. Her ability to venue shop and cut deals could prove prodigious.
You don’t believe me?
Ever hear of Sacco and Vanzetti? Two immigrant anarchists who killed a guard during a robbery attempt in Massachusetts in 1920 and finally executed in 1927? They came to this country hats in hand, poor as church mice, but marched to their deaths as heroes to the oppressed proletariat[…]