[rayiner]

Hilary may have gotten special treatment. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. There are serious Constitutional concerns about the sitting administration prosecuting the presumptive next President. It's not a precedent we want to set.

[adrenalinelol]

Special treatment IS a bad thing. Running for president doesn't exonerate you from a felony.

[rayiner]

Prosecution by the executive of successors (or other branches of government) raises an existential threat to the republic. It's far more important to ensure succession cannot be questioned than it is to punish every felony.

[r00fus]

Seriously, while I entertain the possibility of voting for Hillary, I still think the fact she's running for President shouldn't exempt her from the law.

Of course, that brings up the question - was she really breaking the law? Were others before her doing the same?

[rayiner]

The problem is that the executive's power to prosecute can be abused to undermine democracy when it's targeted Presidential candidates. Politically motivated prosecution is not unheard of. That's not the risk in this specific case, but that's not a road I want to start walking down.

[tomjen3]

If she had been prosecuted, she would be taken out of the race, which would mean that the democrats would have lost their nominee, which means that Trump would win but not because he was really elected.

Can you imagine the nightmare that would have been politically? Hrc should have been prosecuted a long time ago.

[dragonwriter]

Being prosecuted wouldn't disqualify her legally. Still, if it happened before the convention, it might have resulted in her not getting the nomination (by enough superdelegates shifting to Derby her a majority of delegates), but that would just mean someone else, probably Sanders, would get the nomination.