>>If you think that this is funny.. wait till you see the election results... you'll hurt yourself laughing.
>
>If she faces indictment on any count of the four sets of issues currently under investigation ( lying under oath, criminal misdemeanor for mishandling of classified information, federal corruption charges for conducting Foundation business while at the State Dept, or even espionage....the last of which has come up recently), she is finished.

FYI: the media spin found across a not too narrow span of publications over here on #2 is that at the time the classified docs were put through her unsafe personal email server such an action was not forbidden by US law. Personally uncertain if such classification is correct, wishful thinking, expected outcome or false, but #1 of this list has lowest probability in my personal estimate (estimate=did not check in depth myself).
>
>But if indictments don't occur (nor recommendations from the FBI for indictment) then I agree, she will win. The R party is a total mess and they don't have a viable candidate. She will win by default - but let's face facts. That NYT story is a joke in boasting of her qualifications.

If the primary process were to put either Trump, Bush or Clinton on one side of the election, I think the US system is showing signs of leaving the intentions of your founding fathers (that goes more for ariststocratic selection of the last 2). If the election is between 2 of those 3, in Roman times the US probably is somewhere before/near Sulla or Catilina. Octavian cementing Cesars changes happened not many generations later.