I have a feeling that this case is going to be studied for years no matter how it turns out. In ethics the appearance of impropriety is generally considered en

I have a feeling that this case is going to be studied for years no matter how it turns out. In ethics the appearance of impropriety is generally considered enough to be a breach. I think most independent observers would admit that there's plenty of bad-looking stuff here, however with the election season in full swing I could be wrong. More interesting, I imagine, is the legal maneuverings going on. Assuming that something went way wrong here, and please enough with the clintonesque tu quoque arguments, it's fascinating comparing what happened to the witnesses after the investigation was launched here compared to, say, aaronsw. In Aaron's case, a school set up a camera and caught him accessing files he shouldn't. In the Clinton case, scads of sensitive emails were sent all over the internet from a server that shouldn't be handling them. The difference in evidence here looks astounding, especially if you know something about email. In the first case, a lone prosecutor is able to use the full force and weight of the U.S. government to harass and threaten. There's a small number of people involved, limited resources, and lots of press. In the second case, over a hundred FBI agents are working hard night and day, one supposes, but evidence goes missing, hard drives which need to be in evidence are instead sent to secure destruction facilities, and we can't even seem to be able to to locate low-value secondary information. Press consists of lots of pieces slanted against the government's case. My money says nothing comes of this. I'd give 50-50 odds that in some fashion it's tossed to the Congress to consider impeachment, and of course that'll never happen. There are a lot more incredible contrasts between these cases. I hesitate to mention them due to folks getting upset about their political candidate not looking so good.