>>To strongly appear quite guilty and never be exonerated, yes, that is where we are.
>>Just as innocent as OJ
OJ's dead wife meant that "somebody" is a murderer. There was a definite crime and prosecutors felt evidence pointed to OJ beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case there's no dead body or any visible victim at all, meaning there's no certainty that *any* crime was committed let alone by HRC.
Certainly gamblers are sensitive to marked cards so any conspiracy ought to be unraveling by now. Where are the victims who experienced the unlikely losses so HRC could make extraordinary gains?
As for the "did it before" - if her advisor had murdered somebody, does that make HRC more likely to be a murderer?
"... They ne'er cared for us
yet: suffer us to famish, and their store-houses
crammed with grain; make edicts for usury, to
support usurers; repeal daily any wholesome act
established against the rich, and provide more
piercing statutes daily, to chain up and restrain
the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and
there's all the love they bear us."
-- Shakespeare: Coriolanus, Act 1, scene 1
