“If the FBI doesn’t recommend charges, then she [Clinton] didn’t break any law.”

Eric Zuesse

That seems to be the opinion of the majority of reader-comments at reddit.

In response to an article that presented six U.S. criminal laws which clearly describe the most basic aspect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email operation, and some of which U.S. laws specify up to 20 years imprisonment for it, the overwhelming opinion of commenters at reddit has been that if the FBI doesn’t recommend that the case regarding Clinton be pursued in court, then she should be (for all intents and purposes) considered and treated by voters to be innocent in the matter.

The reddit-commenters were commenting upon an article which opened by noting that these six laws were only the laws that describe the most basic aspects of what she unquestionably did — not necessarily all of the laws that she might be charged with breaking by her email operation. It was an article I wrote. Its opening said: “This is not an exclusive list, nor does it relate to charges that might possibly be made against Ms. Clinton on grounds other than the unquestionable and basic ground that she moved all of her State Department email operation to a private and non-secured computer outside the State Department, and then attempted to destroy the record of those emails. Here are the six criminal laws of that type, which, I here allege, she clearly broke.” (For example: the speculation in the press, that she might be charged with RICO violations for abuse of her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and her husband via their Clinton Foundation, was not relevant to the matter addressed in the article, which was far more basic than anything speculative.)

The viewpoint of the majority of reddit commenters seems to be that if the FBI doesn’t recommend legal action, then there should be no legal action, regardless of whether the reason why the FBI recommended no legal action might possibly have been that the U.S. President, and his appointee who heads the ‘Justice’ Department, have, in effect, ordered the FBI not to recommend legal action against the former Secretary of State — something that the public will probably have no way of knowing until the history books are written (if ever). (And, by that time, President Clinton’s Presidency might already be past history.)

The view of reddit readers on this matter seems therefore overwhelmingly to favor a ‘democracy’ in which the Executive branch may, if it so chooses, simply ignore the written laws of the country (specifically, in this case, the six laws that were listed).

Consequently, reader-comments are requested here below, responding to that opinion of the majority of commenting readers at reddit, by addressing the following question: Do you consider yourself to be living in a ‘democracy’ if the elected President of your country has taken an oath of office saying: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and if every one of his or her appointees (including the Secretaries of State, such as Hillary Clinton) has taken a similar oath of office, and if these officials have (or might have) demanded their subordinates not to pursue a certain legal case (one which, to pursue, could be the major factor determining whom the next U.S. President will be)?

Another question would be: Would this government be a ‘democracy’ if the lower-level official in the matter (whomever at the FBI possessed the authority in this matter) decided entirely on his or her own volition to ignore those six laws?

If such a decision were instead to have been made by the U.S. President and/or another person at a level above the FBI official, would that constitute obstruction of justice — a serious crime in any country?

Associated questions to these, regarding whether or not the majority of readers commenting at reddit upon this matter, are supporting their government even if their government violates the country’s clearly written laws, include this: How would a government of this description be, in principle, different from a “dictatorship”?

Another would be: Is this government legitimate? Is it even Constitutional?

And, some of the readers here might be interested to read this article about what the term “democracy” means. None of the reader-comments at reddit even mentioned that, though the article that reddit-commenters were responding to had linked to it at its end.

In the context of all this, therefore, if one happens to decide that our government is neither Constitutional nor democratic, then another issue to be discussed here could be: Does this mean that a revolution is necessary; and, if it is, then how should it be done?

If a revolution is not necessary, then must the public accept that they are slaves to the existing government; or, if we are not slaves to it, then how are we not?

All of these are issues that are implicit in the original article, and thus in the comments that were posted to it at reddit. Since the latter seem to reflect the majority-view of the matter, responding to that, and keeping all of the issues that have been noted here in mind in doing so, would be especially appropriate. It would be public comment at a deeper level.

So: please post here your view of the reader-comments at reddit. Maybe there is a deeper level of public thinking about these matters, than what has been expressed by the readers at reddit. Maybe it’ll even be posted right here.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • colinjames71

    The majority of readers at Reddit are morons apparently. We don’t live in a democracy, Gilens and Page confirmed this. What it will take to restore it, I do not know.

    • Eric Zuesse

      That’s my view, too.

      • TruthTime

        A lot of redditors fit into a hive mind-like mentality. And it’s too difficult to verify everyone and their intentions on whether or not they are simply fools (believe propaganda fed to them), bots, or planted shills.

  • Jason Walker

    I would expect that a significant number of “people” posting comments online are paid shills or bots managed by propaganda teams.

    Regardless, this is no democracy, and Comey’s justification that Clinton didn’t have illegal intent is a moot point. Even unwittingly mishandling classified information is a federal crime. The simple fact she refused to give the FBI all of her emails would be enough to incarcerate any non-“elite”.

    This is a fascist banana republic, and plenty of folks are hip to the game. No empire in history has prevailed under the weight of it’s own corruption, and the U.S. will be no different. The only unknowns are the how and when.

    • jason walker

      Kudos to the continued work of Mr. Zuesse. I once berated him for an article discussing democrats vs. republicans (which all seems so petty now in light of far more pressing issues), but he continues to be a rare and cogent voice on critically important and falsely reported subjects, such as the democratic annexation of Crimea, and the NATO moves towards WW3.

      Keep up the good work, and let the naysayers be fuel for your fire.

      • Eric Zuesse

        Thanks, Jason, it’s a lonely beat (the lies and other abuses-of-power at the very top of our society), so even just one reader cheering me on means a lot to me — that at least one person (other than the few news-site-owners who still publish me) cares about and appreciates it, and wants the beat to go on. When George W. Bush was President, I was trying to get the ‘reporters’ to cover his lies and criminality that were being supported by both Republicans and Democrats, but (since virtually all of the ‘news’ media are either Republican or Democratic, none did cover it. Then when Barack Obama continued and even amplified many of those Bush crimes, I started writing about it myself, and a few ‘alternative news’ sites plus the Huffington Post published some of my articles, but as soon as, in 2014, I started exposing Obama’s coup in Ukraine and his responsibility even for the 2 May 2014 massacre at the Odessa Trade Unions Building, and for the ethnic cleansing operation against the residents in Donbass, fewer and fewer sites published my articles, and by now only around a half-dozen sites are continuing to, despite there being no one who can point to any falsehood or bad source in any of my articles. When reporting about the deepest level of criminality, truthfulness and honesty are no longer assets in the ‘news business’ if they ever were. One is allowed to be truthful and honest only on things about which the holders of power are not in agreement and so at least some of those individuals don’t mind if the truth is exposed to the public.

      • colinjames71

        Good on ya, well said, agreed.

  • Feudal Peasant

    The curtain accidentally parted, and then closed.

  • cstahnke

    People need to take this with a good grain of salt. First, the notion that the FBI is the go-to institution to look into matters of justice and that it is filled with good honest and very square men and women. No it isn’t. The FBI has always been more focused on ideology and political machinations than anything else and is neither honest nor competent on balance. Are there some good agents who are honest and true–certainly, but as an institution they are rotten to the core. Just look at the history. But regardless of just how bad they are there was never even a tiny chance of an indictment of either Hilary or anyone who is in a position of power (unless they lost some power-struggle as Gen. Petraeus did). Clinton is the one the Deep State has ordered up and there was no way anyone could stop that. Washington is a power city and there are people there who make you offers you can’t refuse with regularity.

  • Germanm

    Why wasting your time excoriating the government, whinning about the corruption levels displayed by the political class in America and worst of all, giving attention to a reality show called “Presidential Elections” knowing THAT NOTHING IS GOING TO CHANGE.

    FDR’s words about presidential elections in the US are the rule of the game today:


    Mrs. Clinton has already been SELECTED to become the next president of the United States, and the ignorant and gullible masses in America have no say on this process.

    End of story.

  • clarioncaller

    There is a HUGE chasm between innocence and not enough evidence to convict. The director made a point of highlighting lack of intent, but federal statutes which Hillary disregarded don’t require intent for prosecution. As every lawyer knows, ignorance of the law is no defense. The blind scales of justice just had a corrupt butcher’s thumb pressed hard upon American’s expectations, and we will be paying for something we never received.