|
The difference between rules and laws matters because rules are policy, and generally have no master standard or chain of accountability, as laws do. Breaking a law begins, at least in theory, a transparent series of events that lead to either acquittal or punishment. Being accused of breaking a law does the same. In the US, we have a very high bar for conviction, as well we should.
If Nominee Clinton broke a rule, she did something that was against the policy of an agency set by the appointed leaders of that agency, or a group of leaders above the agency. If she broke a law, she did something that undermines the freedom and security of the United States by failing to adhere to the will of the people.
Was what she did correct? No. She showed the same lack of judgment she showed when she voted for the Iraq war, rushing to do something that seemed convenient and correct at the moment without considering the long term effects. The same lack of judgment, IMHO, that leads her to leap on the anti-snowden bandwagon. This is a serious fault.
However, she is an excellent strategist, and she is not evil, unlike, say, any of the Kennedys. She has assets, including strength or character, motivation, raw intelligence, and a belief in group success, that will be beneficial for this country. She has an unparalleled network, with many powerful people beholden to her. She will not change with power, nor will she abuse her power (much). She will play slow positional chess, and build an inexorable win.
|