Pardon Hillary
This may be the last message you expected from me, but Obama should pardon Hillary. If Obama does not, Trump should.
Look, I am a FOIA absolutist. Long before it came out that Clinton may have had top secret emails on her home server, I wanted to see her punished for her flouting of public accountability laws. Her whole home-brewed email system was a transparent attempt to evade FOIA, and consistent with her history of attempting to duck transparency (going all the way back to her abortive health care initiative she ran as First Lady). In addition, I have had it up to here with bogus non-profits that pretend to do charity work, but are in fact merely lifestyle and influence maintenance devices for their principals. I would love to see the Clinton Foundation investigated (though market forces may take care of that institution on their own, as it is unlikely donors will be sending much money their way now that the Clintons have no prospect of returning to power).
But the optics, and precedents involved, with a winning candidate's administration criminally prosecuting the election's loser are just terrible. Even if entirely justified, the prosecution smacks of banana republic politics. And even if it were justified, half the country would not see it that way and next time, when the parties are reversed, as sure as the sun rises in the East there will be folks looking to duplicate the prosecution in the other direction.
The rule of law is seldom helped by ignoring wrong-doing, but in this case I will make an exception.
Postscript: By the way, what could be a better political FU than having Trump pardon her? An attempted prosecution could last for years and could lead nowhere. But nothing leaves the impression of "your guilty" like a preemptive pardon (see Richard Nixon). From a political point of view Obama should pardon her just to prevent Trump from doing so and getting credit for being a healer.
John Say: Gorin v. United States was a case involving the Espionage act. Espionage would require intent. 18 793 is the law involving "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information"
Um, 18 U.S. Code § 793 is part of the Espionage Act.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-37
John Say: Specific to 18 793 intention is required for many sections but not others - and specifically not (f).
Without intent, the phrase “relating to the national defense”, Gorin v. United States found, would be unconstitutionally vague. With intent, it met the constitutional test. That language hasn't changed, so the decision still pertains.
And that would be WRONG.
The case you cited does not apply and does not mean what you claim.
I am not aware either before or after Gorin of SCOTUS ever requiring "intent" for a crime of gross negligence or recklessness - not at the federal level and not with respect to state law.
But the state of your argument is WORSE than even that.
Because while 18 793(f) requires negligence or recklessness - which pretty much by definition precludes an intent requirement - how do you intend something that you do recklessly or negligently ? Your argument is that all drunk driving laws - and myriads of other laws are either unconsitutional.
Do you need to prove that a driver knew they were speeding to convict them of speeding ?
Further subsequent to Gorin (like within a two years), SCOTUS found that intent was not required - even where there was no negligence or recklessness provisions.
This legal argument is nonsense.
Do you understand that by your theory of clinton's innocence probably 1/3 of all federal law is unconstitutional ?
Just to be clear not only does case law disagree, it RESOUNDINGLY disagrees.
Wrong again.
The supreme court has already ruled - almost 200 years ago, that you can refuse a presidential pardon.
http://www.cbmcint.com/the-man-who-refused-a-pardon/
Do you tire of being wrong ?
John Say: Is Clinton's conduct acceptable to you ?
The close nexus of money and politics is fraught with problems. Politicians spend most of their time raising money for the next campaign, rather than on the people's business. Some of this can be addressed by legislation, legislation that Republicans have generally opposed. Some of this is inevitable as people with money tend to be connected, and politicians want to be connected.
The Clintons came out of the Nixon era, and committed themselves to using the system to further their goals on behalf of what they saw as the betterment of American society. They have always edged close the line, but have apparently attempted to stay on the right side of the line.
The constant attacks are a consequence of that strategy. So you have Republicans who not only spend most of their time, like all politicians, raising money, but they spend most of the rest of their time chasing after phantoms, further degrading the American political process. They have wallowed in truthiness for so long, that now the U.S. has an Internet troll for president, and people have vilified the Clintons, who have worked for decades for what they see as the benefit of American society.
The question is whether the Clintons have spent too much time in the mire, and have lost their moorings. However, it seems clear, by any objective measure, that the Clintons still believed that they could have made a positive contribution to American society.
John Say: Should public officials be allowed to conduct public business on private emails ?
No.
John Say: Should they be allowed to deprive government of control of the records of their government activities ?
No.
John Say: Should they be allowed to communicate and store classified information in their basements ?
No. However, keep in mind that email, dotgov or no, is no place for classified information. The classified information found on Clinton's server largely originated with career employees within the State Department. The trend has been for greater and greater classification, but mobile technology has reverse this trend. Now, in order to speed communication, more information is being sent in a "sensitive, but unclassified" format. Again, this has nothing to do with the use of the private server or dotgov.
John Say: Should they be allowed to evade FOIA requests ?
No. She says that because government emails were mostly sent to dotgov addresses, they are automatically archives.
John Say: Should they be allowed to structure their public role to favor specifc private actors - such as a "charity" in their name ?
There is no evidence of wrongdoing with regards to the Foundation, and there is lot of misinformation in that regard (such as the program percentage zombie lie).
John Say: If you say no to anything above - then you have accepted that Clinton meets the requirements for mens rea.
No. That doesn't follow. For instance, you ask "Should they be allowed to evade FOIA requests ?" The answer is no, but that doesn't mean it's been shown she has intended to evade FOIA requests.
John Say: If you continue to beleive that it is not illegal - then Congress must act to change that.
Legislation might be called for, though bringing the government processes up-to-date might be all that is required. What is happening is that diplomacy and defense are working at the speed of smartphones, but the processes are devised for someone sitting at a desk with a securer fax in the State Department.
John Say: No I am saying that he lied to the american people in his press conference.
Comey told the House Oversight Committee that the decision not to recommend an indictment was unanimous among the investigative team.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-comey-hillary-clinton-email/
You should provide citations to "widely reported" reports.
John Say: Further subsequent to Gorin (like within a two years), SCOTUS found that intent was not required - even where there was no negligence or recklessness provisions.
The Court didn't say that all laws concerning negligence were unconstitutional, however, they did say that intent was required in the Espionage Act because of the phrase "relating to national defense". You may disagree, but that was the finding, and the phrasing of the law has not been changed in that regard.
Thank you for the citation. Agreed.
Please actually read Gorin v. US.
Also read the subsequent cases.
The entirety of 18 793 was added AFTER Gorin and AFTER subsequent decisions eliminating the requirement for Mens Rea.
You are arguing that a case decided on essentially different grounds - the vagueness and breadth of a statue that no longer exists in that form.
Regardless, this is a LONG decided issue.
As a practical matter I think that it is decided wrongly.
That with very very few exceptions - where negligence or recklessness CAN constitute a crime, that Mens Rea should be required.
But:
That is not the case, no matter how hard you argue that it is, nor how hard I argue that it should be.
If you kill a protected species - you have committed a federal crime - even if you did not intend to kill a protected species - even if you did not intend to kill anything.
That is the state of the law - not just that law, but probably 1/3 of all federal law.
And EVEN if either SCOTUS reversed on that OR congress passed law implimenting a default Mens Rea requirement, you would still run afoul of the fact that recklessness or negligence standards have been accepted as a substitute for Mens Rea in laws so written for over 200 years.
Further, we actually have intent.
Clinton wrote that she intended to protect her communications from FOIA requests.
That is sufficient.
Additionally, we have numerous successful prosecutions of people with LESS evident intent than Clinton - both by the current administration which has AGGRESSIVELY persued exactly this type of prosecution, and by prior administrations. There is a case back in the 80's where a few classified documents were inadvertently removed when an employee cleared out their desk having been terminated and were found in his garage years later, and he was convicted. He had no "intent", the number of documents was small, the classification level was low, and the employee did not even have knowledge that the documents were in his possession until years after they were removed.
But finally and most damning - you know that Clinton's conduct was wrong, I know it, she knew it, and plenty of those arround her knew it.
And that is the actual standard for intent.
Actually the language has changed as the entirety of 793 dates AFTER Gorin.
And just to be clear, Gorin was not actually about intent.
It was about vagueness. You are connecting two issues that are not connected.
Long rant ignored.
The question is simple - Is Clinton's conduct acceptable to you ?
Every parent on the planet has heard the "but Johny's parents let him do it" excuse, or that of "everyone's" doing it.
Most of us know what is right ad what is wrong.
"An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind"
Everyone else is doing it is NOT a justification.
We have been playing that stupid game too long.
Nixon's conduct was justified by FDR's,
Subsequent presidents were justified by Nixon.
The first actual government shutdown was between O'Neil and Reagan. That justified Gingrich and Clinton and Boehner and Obama.
Either it is acceptable or it is not. It is not only acceptable when your party does it.
Obama has extended presidential authority far more than any other president and far more than the constitution allows. In some cases I support the cause for which he did so.
But in the end either the conduct is wrong or it is not.
Clinton has tried to argue that Powell and Rice, also used private emails.
That appears true.
Regardless, the conduct is either right or wrong.
If you accept what Clinton and Obama did as right - then when Trump and his cronies go even further you have no leg to stand on.
Get a clue. Things are not right because you are a democrat when the same thing is wrong if you are a republican.
We have fights coming in the senate over the "nuclear option".
Personally I support the filibuster.
But either we have it or we don't.
We do not have it when republicans control and not when democrats do.
A general filibuster would have stopped PPACA.
Which might have prevented Democrats losing the house, senate and now the presidency.
But again.
We have rules and principles - they either apply to all or to none.
"Power corrupts"
Lord Acton.
Acton did not say "money corrupts".
It is power that is dangerous.
Are you claiming that but for the money in politics that all politicians would be honest and decent ?
Are you saying that for enough money you would do most any vile and immoral act ?
Are you saying that we are not entitled to expect our elected officials to be honest because money is involved ?
Lets say you magically completely eliminated money from the electoral process.
Are you saying that politicians could still distrubute the $4T per year the federal government doles out incorruptably ?
Are you saying that Clinton's activities regarding the Clinton foundation are entirely due to the cost of being elected ?
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/harrychapin/idontwanttobepresident.html
You keep ducking the issues.
I did not ask about what you think the clinton's think.
I am asking you POINT BLANK.
Is this acceptable, moral, ethical or not ?
Not what do you think the Clinton's think.
I am not interested in twisted moral relativism.
Either you beleive this conduct is wrong or you do not.
The debate over what is the lessor evil is an entirely different debate.
I can accept that many people voted for Clinton knowing that she is a crook, because they think that she is the lessor evil - though that does not explain how they voted for her over Sanders. Just as I can understand how people voted for Trump beleiving he is the lessor evil.
But I am NOT asking relative questions of who is the lessor evil.
I am NOT letting you argue everyone does it.
I am not asking you it maybe congress should sort of debate changes in the law.
I am asking YOU to have some moral fiber and to commit to whether some conduct is wrong or not.
The problem with Politics is not the amount of money in it.
It is that voters such as your self are prepared to tolerate ever increasing amounts of corruption in return for what you know are lies that some politician will deliver on some false promise.
If you vote for morally compromised people, you should expect poor conduct.
Here's the original 1917 law:
"whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both."
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904
The language concerning "relating to the national defence" introduced an ambiguity that Gorin v. United States found could only be resolved by "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
Just to be clear you have agreed with me that a significant portion of Clinton's conduct was WRONG.
The legal requirement for intent is not the specific intention to commit the specific crime - otherwise felony murder laws would be unconstitutional - not to mention criminally negligent homicide or pretty much all negligence crimes.
The legal requirement for intent is to intend to do wrong with a result that is otherwise a crime. It is not necescary to intend to do criminally wrong.
John Say: "Power corrupts" Lord Acton.
Love of money is the root of evil. — Paul
John Say: Are you claiming that but for the money in politics that all politicians would be honest and decent ?
That's contrary to our position. We pointed out that there are both avoidable and inherent inequities in political access.
John Say: Are you saying that Clinton's activities regarding the Clinton foundation are entirely due to the cost of being elected ?
The Clinton Foundation was a way for the Clintons to leverage their connections to do good in the world, while building on those connections for political purposes. That's an example of inherent inequities, though again, leveraged for good purposes.
John Say: Long rant ignored.
It was hardly a rant, and entailed our answers concerning the questions you asked. You are under no obligation to read those answers, but it's rather silly to then pretend they weren't answered.
John Say: I did not ask about what you think the clinton's think. I am asking you POINT BLANK. Is this acceptable, moral, ethical or not ?
Of course it matters what they think. If they are using their political power for bad purposes, then it is unacceptable, even if the means are completely uncorrupted. But to use legal political processes can be acceptable, though when that is appropriate and the pitfalls, we discussed above.
All your questions presuppose some sort of inordinate corruption, rather than just glad-handing and compromise that make up the political process. Sorry the world doesn't fit into your neat boxes.
John Say: It is that voters such as your self are prepared to tolerate ever increasing amounts of corruption in return for what you know are lies that some politician will deliver on some false promise.
You're talking about Trump now?
You are correct that a dot gov address would not have resolved this. But that only makes things worse for clinton.
It MIGHT be reasonable for a stupid person (which Clinton is clearly not) to presume that a dotgov address is still secure. It is not reasonable to presume that your own email address with email stored on a private server in your basement is secure.
Absolutely there are more people than Clinton who violated 18 cfr 793(f). Pretty much the entirety of her staff.
And that is why the pardon's must go far beyond clinton but must also bar all those involved from Federal service in the future.
Though I would note that 18 cfr 793(f) covers both the sender and recipient.
Clinton stored information she RECEIVED insecurely.
Absolutely the sender also violated the law.
Frankly, if you know much about classified documents you know that none of this was accidental or negligent.
Classified materials always have a chain of custody.
To remove them from a SCIF you have to acknowledge taking posesion of them.
There are some minor complications involving Clinton because works of her creation are to a large extent automatically classified.
Something that has been missing from this debate is that Much of what Clinton writes and does is AUTOMATICALLY classified - until it is subsequently determined otherwise.
Clintons schedule as an example is often classified - atleast until after the event.
Further we have instances of Clinton ordering staff to fax classified information to her uncleared housekeeper at her home.
We have instances were excerpts from classified documents appear verbatim in unclassified and unmarked emails.
For that to happen it REQUIRES someone to have COPIED something from a secure system to an insecure system and REMOVED the classified markings.
John Say: It MIGHT be reasonable for a stupid person (which Clinton is clearly not) to presume that a dotgov address is still secure.
Email is not secure for classified information. Dotgov doesn't change this. So having a private server is irrelevant to this question. It may be relevant for FOIA, but that was also resolved by the FBI.
John Say: Just to be clear you have agreed with me that a significant portion of Clinton's conduct was WRONG.
No. We agreed they were not best practice.
To address your dotgov remarks more broadly.
Absolutely.
Classified documents NEVER are transfered legally through insecure channels.
The mere presence of classified information in an email - regardless of whether it is a dotgov address or not is proof that the laws regarding handling of classified documents have been violated.
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER should classified content - marked or not, ever end up in an email or fax or stored outside of a SCIF.
The mere fact that it has REQUIRES that SOMEONE REMOVED IT.
Contra Comey it is extremely hard to do that "unintentionally"
The very best scenario you have for Clinton's innocense requires the rest of her staff to be egregiously guilty.
John Say: The mere presence of classified information in an email - regardless of whether it is a dotgov address or not is proof that the laws regarding handling of classified documents have been violated.
That is wrong on two counts. Just because something is classified does not mean it is "relating to national security". That can only be determined by a jury. Second, the law requires intent. That doesn't mean there's no punishment, but that punishment is administrative, not criminal.
John Say: NEVER, NEVER, NEVER should classified content - marked or not, ever end up in an email or fax or stored outside of a SCIF.
Of course not, but it does all the time. And other times, they retroactively classify things that you can read in the newspaper. That's because people who try hard to do their job using modern technology to communicate, and often discuss "sensitive, but unclassified" information, that may be deemed classified. Gee whiz, Powell had classified information on his AOL account, and thousands of those records were never archived. He wasn't breaking the law, because he was not aware that the information was, in fact, classified.
As we learned with Louis Lehrner a dotgov address is NOT a guarantee that something is automatically archived.
Regardless, Clinton's communications - both classified and not were ALL subject to government document handling laws. Comunications with NON-Government actors - such as the Clinton Foundation, about Government functions - such as securing an appointment for sume donor would NOT have been to others with dotgov addresses - further some of Clinton's staff also had addresses on her server, removing some of her staff communications from archiving and FOIA requirements.
John Say: There is a case back in the 80's ...
Rather vague reference.
That she intended to evade FOIA requirements is actually spelled out in here emails.
Regardless, you have a very odd definition of intent.
Apparently your Idea of criminal intent requires someone to announce "I am going to shoot you in the head" prior to shooting you in the head - otherwise intent can not be proved.
Absent expressed intent to do wrong - which we do have with respect to FOIA requests, intent is determined by ones actions, not ones words.
We presume that certain actions are not taken for innocent purposes because they are generally accepted as wrong.
It is not even necescary for the specific person committing the act to accpet that the action is wrong.
Otherwise we could never convict sociopaths.
Given that most ordinary people beleive that some conduct is wrong - not even necescarily illegal.
The requirement for intent is met.
If a landlord chooses not to maintain a property to save money - actions that may not be wrong or even illegal,
and a gas leak results that blows up the building and people are killed - he still may be convicted of killing them. Because doing something generally recognized as wrong - even if not illegal meets the requirement for intent.
I can assure you that the communications that defense uses are not merely fast, but also secure.
I worked in specifically that area for several years.
Conversely Diplomacy if anything is SLOWER than ever before.
Secure phones exist - even secure smart phones.
That is trivial. The fundimental problem - which is also the most compelling evidence in this case, is that you can not (easily) have a device that retains information and participates in both secure and insecure networks.
If you receive an email from a secure network on your "blackberry" you can not then be able to forward it to your friends over the internet.
The Law and NSA do not allow that. This was actually a big fight Clinton had with NSA (more proof of intention).
Because Obama asked for an was given a Blackberry that was on both secure and insecure networks.
This proved both incredibly difficult and expensive.
Further the entirety of our classified documents laws do not apply to POTUS as he can alone can unilaterally decide without review by others what is classified and what is not. The president can step in front of the american people and announce in detail whatever he chooses about our most sensitive secrets.
No other person in government can do that.
NSA will not create a device that is on both secure and insecure networks concurrently for anyone but the president.
And even for the president they endeavored to make it difficult to impossible to move information from one netowrk to the other.
John Say: We presume that certain actions are not taken for innocent purposes because they are generally accepted as wrong.
The FBI didn't find sufficient evidence of intent, nor have you provided anything definitive to indicate why they were wrong.
Just to be clear, your link does NOT have Comey saying the decision was unanimous.
It has the media saying he said that.
But I will presume that actually was his testimony.
Presuming he did not subsequently revise his testimony, that would constitute perjury.
"You should provide citations to "widely reported" reports."
Google is your friend. And much of this was covered by NYT so even a left wing nut should not be able to claim ignorance.
I only rarely make a point of citing the obvious or what is easily verifiable.
I "should" do whatever I wish, so long as I do not initiate violence or fraud, keep any agreements I have made, or actually harm others.
That is what liberty means.
I am free to make my arguments as I please.
As you are yours.
I can turn my posts into academic papers with cites and footnotes, or I can toss of bold and bald assertions without support as I wish.
And you are free to determine how much effort you wish to expend to verify them and how much credibility you wish to give them.
Regardless, of what I say, and regardless of what weight you give it - the facts still are what they are.
Cited out the whazoo or lying their as naked assertions.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
A fact is a fact - whether offer naked or with reams of support.
John Say: This was actually a big fight Clinton had with NSA (more proof of intention).
Actually, it's proof of someone with a limited computer skill-set trying to make it work. Pretty typical, really.
HURD: Were — was this unanimous opinion within the FBI on your decision?
COMEY: The whole FBI wasn’t involved, but the team of agents, investigators, analysts, technologists, yes.
http://www.thompsontimeline.com/congressional-testimony-of-fbi-director-james-comey/
John Say: I am free to make my arguments as I please.
Sure, you can post jibber jabber, if you want.
If you refuse to support your claims when asked, then most people will probably ignore those claims. Butto
John Say: Google is your friend.
We did look by searching for your vague claim. Perhaps if you provide a name, it would help. If you can't, then perhaps you are misremembering.
For the most part I do not disagree with you.
The law and federal regulations have subsequently been revised.
18 cfr 793(f) now reads:.
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The ambiguity has been removed. There is no unclear national defense language nor any reference to injury to the US.
And AGAIN subsequent law and caselaw, makes it crystal clear that intention is NOT a constitutional requirement of a criminal law.
You are beating a dead horse.
Probably 1/3 of all federal legislation does not require intent (or negligence or recklessness) and has held up to constitutional challenge.
Conversely negligence and recklessness standards as a substitute for intent have NEVER to my knowledge been found unconstitutional.
Far to many of our state and federal laws depend on that.
Not a christian. Not a big fan of Paul.
Regardless, if money is the root of all evil - then our government is irredeemably corrupt.
"we" - you have a mouse in your pocket ?
I speak for myself.
No. The ambiguity the Court pointed to is still there.
The language concerning "relating to the national defence" introduced an ambiguity that Gorin v. United States found could only be resolved by "intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation."
"That's contrary to our position. We pointed out that there are both avoidable and inherent inequities in political access."
Aside from the fact that your response is pretty much meaningless, there is the separate problem that it is barely even a claim much less anywhere close to a fact.
Life BTW is unfair - that is an inherent and irresolvable inequity. It is outside the power of government to fix or even mitigate that. Attempting to do so merely creates more inequity. This is one of many reasons government must be limited. Government is obligated to equality - in ITS actions - an impossible task. The larger govenrment becomes the less it is able to even pretend at equality.
John Say: if money is the root of all evil
Not money, according to Paul, but the love of money is the root of much evil in the world.
I could care less whether the Clinton foundation is a good charity or a bad one (it is pretty abysmal).
I personally would eliminate all tax deductions and then it would not matter whether something was called a charity or not. If Russian Oligarchs and Saudi Princes wish to give the Clinton's a fortune - directly or indirectly, for good causes or not - I DO NOT CARE!
What matters is that access to government was at the very least being implied.
If the Clintons gave Mother Theresa special access to the state department and allowed her to benefit from the charity that came as a result - that would still be WRONG.
In point of fact, the CF is a pretty poor charity - though I do not have much respect for organized charity.
Further the Clinton's clearly benefited - both DIRECTLY, and indirectly.
Again if you were paying attention, CF brokered access to the state department AND to the Clintons.
CF benefited AND the CLINTONS benefited.
CF or CF staff or sometimes State Staff brokered arrangements that resulted in huge speaking fees for one or another of the Clintons PERSONALLY.
Often determining who did what is nearly impossible because the staff at CF, State and Clintons for profit enterprises are all nepotistically intertwined - deliberately.
Again - get rid of all tax preferences and I could care less what the Clinton's do privately.
But even the appearance of impropriety is intolerable in government, and we have far more than mere appearance.
The is no "leveraged for good purposes" justification of misconduct.
The ends DO NOT justify the means.
If you wish to do good, you do not start with corruption.
John Say: Aside from the fact that your response is pretty much meaningless
Just because you close your eyes to something doesn't mean it's not there.
John Say: Life BTW is unfair - that is an inherent and irresolvable inequity.
Sure, some people get sick and die. Our point was more specific to the point. While some restrictions on money, such as laws against bribery, can help; the various relationships people form may put them at various distances from political power. This is the inherent inequity.
Politicians need to form connections, so they prefer to attach to people who also have large numbers of connections. A business owner will probably have more such connections than a worker at the business, and the business owner will also likely be connected to other highly connected persons. So they become a Friend of Bill!
This is the inherent unfairness in the political process. This is the so-called corruption that underlies the fundamental complaint about the Clintons. How they use that power depends on your political leanings, but they clearly have worked to apply that power towards what they see as the betterment of Americans. For instance, Hillary Clinton was instrumental in passage of the Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides health insurance for millions of children.
John Say: If you wish to do good, you do not start with corruption.
We're not talking about illegality, but wielding influence as a tool, which is at the heart of the political process— and that often requires hard compromises.
Still infested with Mice.
Regardless, there was nothing I find interesting or substantial in your rant. Nor did it answer anything.
So many of your answers take the form of
"yes, .... well not really".
Make up your mind.