Replies

No argument but as I clarified in other posts:

I agree it was sleazy - but I can also hear the defense stating, rightfully so, that she was not qualified to understand his issues properly. It's why we have "expert" witnesses and rely on testimony of so-called "experts" in some cases. It could just as easily be said that she has sociopath issues which amount to her needing psychiatric help.

I would not be sad to see her indicted/convicted but we also need to have some lines within the legal system to insure it isn't up to the discretion of those who are offended vs. the actual laws and intents of the laws under the Constitution.

So many of our problems have been caused by politicians selling us on, or claiming, some "Noble Cause" clause in the Constitution that my "spidey sense" goes off with such cases.

My instincts say, "hang her from a tree in the town square", my other side says we need to be absolutely sure we are actually doing what's right without putting another ding in the Constitution - like "hate crimes"....

Even though your take on it has merit, then we also need to prosecute law officers for stings where they urge others to commit crimes in order to nab them. Unless we decide that under the aegis of "official law officers" that such activity is OK while it isn't OK for mere citizens. Where is the line drawn.

I realize they aren't "allowed" to cause death by their actions in the stings, but where is that line drawn and who decides that it be drawn?

If you or I did half of what Hillary did, we would be put away for life - the same folks trying to say she's not culpable are those who get to say others are culpable for the same crimes.

Until we get back on a solid Constitutional foundation, laws are worse than meaningless -they are tools and weapons to be wielded against the People at the whims of those "in charge".

but I can also hear the defense stating, rightfully so, that she was not qualified to understand his issues properly. It's why we have "expert" witnesses and rely on testimony of so-called "experts" in some cases.

So if I'm not an expert in ballistics and anatomy, I could get away with shooting someone because I didn't understand the harm that a bullet could cause?

She had 100% understanding that he actions would cause his death. She even admitted that in texts to others.

This wasn't a casual conversation, she helped him plot and plan his suicide. She even made decisions like where and when.

If he had robbed a bank and been shot and killed, and these kinds of texts from her had been found about the planning and the encouraging to go through with it, she would be charged in the same manner.