Original post by AlexanderHamCounterfactuals are impossible to verify. I would say that I find the chants of "Lock her up" and the bold proclamations from people who have no legal education, who have no familiarity with the relevant caselaw, who often haven't even read the pertinent clauses in Title 18 of the US Code, to say "Oh she's defintely a criminal, definitely guilty, she should go to prison". If you probe that you often discover they seem to think just having a private email server was a crime and therefore she is guilty. And so you have a noxious mix of people whose ignorance of the law is being played on, and people with sinister motivations using that ignorance to start advancing very dangerous ideas (like locking up your political opponents) that are profoundly, fundamentally, obnoxious to the Anglo-American political tradition.
My view is that she did not break the law, and I saw that as a law student with a long interest in American law. It's an issue on which people who are qualified to opine can and do differ; the arguments could be finely balanced. That's why we have a judicial process, not trial by mob. By the way, the FBI director who decided not to send the case on to the US Attorney for potential prosecution, James Comey... he's a Republican. He was the Deputy Attorney-General in the Bush Administration. We're not talking about some pathetic little creature of the Clintons who was pulled out of a Wall Street firm to stitch up the FBI for them.
Trustworthy in regards of what? Our political system is based on reason, on verification, on self-interest. I trust Hillary Clinton will behave in precisely the way her political allegiances, her history, her ideological tendencies (as can be seen in the books she's written), her obligations to her supporters (in the labor unions, in the environmental movement, in the gay rights movement, as well as others in finance and technology sectors), would incline her to behave. I don't know Hillary Clinton personally so I'm not going to use these emotive words like trust in that kind of slightly pathetic "Oh I'm so deeply wounded, I trusted her" sense.
I trust Hillary Clinton would never, say, order her Attorney-General to do something that would undermine gay rights; not only because it would be contrary to her general political motivations and ideology but because she has been strongly backed financially by the gay rights movement and in the American political system she owes them. I'm not mentioning the gay thing because it's some particular political red line for me; I mention it because it's an example of an issue where we know exactly how she will behave, and "trust" is irrelevant. Her fundamental political interests are tied to her behaving in a certain way.
I trust she would never fundamentally betray Americans interests out of some bizarre sense of loyalty to the president of Russia. I trust she would be generally strong and emphatic on national security, which I care about. If you take the time to read up on a politician's history, their views, their associations... you'll rarely be surprised by what they do. The way they will approach any particular problem is usually fairly predictable based on the above considerations, and while that decision-making matrix is perhaps more favourable to capital, rather than labour, than I would prefer, broadly she is acceptable. When placed next to Trump, she is positively desirable.
The best way to predict her future behaviour is to look at her past behaviour, which is that she is broadly a middle of the road democrat who will find a balance between the interests of labor and capital, who will be supportive of the rights of minorities, who will generally continue to uphold the rule of law in America. I don't see what trust has to do with it; what are people who are claiming she can't be trusted saying she is going to do that will surprise us?