Would you hold Hillary Clinton responsible for something one of her campaign workers did?

[fantome profane]

As an isolated case that she dealt with quickly and expeditiously? No.

As a widespread issue in her campaign that she denied and ignored or encouraged? Yes.

I think this is a good answer. I think you are saying that the candidate would have a responsibility to deal with it.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

There's insufficient information to judge at all.
So I didn't.
That's not enuf "leeway" for you?

Say there was sufficient information...

 

[Sapiens]

Based on covering up something subordinates did. An inexorable chain of events.

It was clear that Nixon knew what was going on, prior to the tapes that was hard to prove thus the clear and easy to prove charges. There was nothing inexorable about it except for Nixon's dishonesty and criminality.

 

[Revoltingest]

Say there was sufficient information...

I refuse to say that.
So are you trying to convict Hillary of a hypothetical
crime in order to implicate Trump in one? Is this
because you can't find a real one? Oh, dear.

 

[fantome profane]

I'd need more facts. Did Hilary know or should she have known that her agent would do as he/she did?

Let’s say she denies having any knowledge. Can we say that under certain circumstances she had a responsibility to know, and if she really did not know that shows negligence on her part?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I refuse to say that.
So are you trying to convict Hillary of a hypothetical
crime in order to implicate Trump in one? Is this
because you can't find a real one? Oh, dear.

I think you're making this about Trump. I didn't make it about Trump. I don't have double standards for the right and left. See my previous post.

 

[fantome profane]

Are you asking a legal question about criminal liability? An impeachment question which has a different standard? A personal question that applies to all managers (should the boss know what is going on)?

Any of the above. Should she be held legally responsible, or politically responsible, or just morally responsible?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're making this about Trump.

I'm just speculating about the true intent of the thread.
Come on....no names, no misdeed specifics, vague as
all git out, a source favoring Hillary over Trump? Hah!

 

[Shaul]

How about if we hold her accountable for the things she has done herself first, then worry about what her part of what her subordinates have done later. I mean she has a lot to answer for in her own which she has been getting away with!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I foresee that a cover-up would have been inevitable if this alleged scenario would have come to fruition. Hillary might not have been pilloried though. The accomplished women love her.

That very well could be the case.

 

[joe1776]

Let’s say she denies having any knowledge. Can we say that under certain circumstances she had a responsibility to know, and if she really did not know that shows negligence on her part?

We would need to know exactly what her agent says and what Hilary says in order to make that judgment. Lacking that, we'd be jumping to a conclusion on insufficient evidence. The prosecutors would have to convince a jury that Hilary knew or should have known that her agent might well break a law. And their evidence would have to be convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see that as reluctance to clearly state that you wouldn't give Clinton the same benefit of a doubt and leeway @Revoltingest @Nowhere Man

I'd love to see your response to the OP, instead of questioning motives. I voted that yes I'd want Clinton held responsible. I don't think it'd be better just because Clinton did it. Why would I hold Donald to a different standard that I wouldn't subject Clinton to?

There's no charges. Not any indictment. What else could it be?

 

[Revoltingest]

There's no charges. Not any indictment. What else could it be?

Btw, I didn't vote.
Insufficient data.
And it seemed that useful info was artfully withheld.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I smell Trump.

Enough with the anti-Trump posts. His deoderant, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with his ability to govern.

Damn leftie.

 

[sun rise]

Any of the above. Should she be held legally responsible, or politically responsible, or just morally responsible?

I'm not a lawyer so can't comment on the law.

Politically responsible - how would she or someone else react when the news came out. If immediate action was taken to clean up the mess, then I would not hold a person politically responsible. Lying and cover-ups such as Trump does, is to me a political failure and should have political consequences.

If someone did not know and took action when she or he found out, there's no moral responsibility. There are many cases where people do something that the boss does not know about. This happens all the time.

 

[Altfish]

As an isolated case that she dealt with quickly and expeditiously? No.

As a widespread issue in her campaign that she denied and ignored or encouraged? Yes.

This

 

[idav]

If someone working on Clinton’s campaign did something illegal that involved the election, would Clinton be responsible. And let’s say this was an important person on the campaign, not just a coffee boy. Would this show poor judgement on Clintons part? Would she be legally responsible?

My first thought is that a person running is responsible for what the campaign does. However I do understand that some in the campaign may do something under the radar, I just find that unlikely. I think if a person running did something it should be thoroughly investigated to their inner motive and involvement. I don’t necessarily believe a boss is 100% responsibile for subordinates, it does depend on involvement and the bosses direct orders.

 

[esmith]

It all depends on how you define "directly".

 

[PureX]

If someone working on Clinton’s campaign did something illegal that involved the election, would Clinton be responsible. And let’s say this was an important person on the campaign, not just a coffee boy. Would this show poor judgement on Clintons part? Would she be legally responsible?

Yes. The candidates are responsible for the people they choose to run their campaigns, and for what those people do in that capacity. Pleading ignorance does not relieve one of this responsibility, it only compounds it with low character and stupidity.

 

[Nous]

If someone working on Clinton’s campaign did something illegal that involved the election, would Clinton be responsible. And let’s say this was an important person on the campaign, not just a coffee boy. Would this show poor judgement on Clintons part? Would she be legally responsible?

That is part of the question I am asking. The hypothetical crime is something that involves the election, a major crime, it took place during the campaign, and was committed by a major staffer who worked closely with Clinton. Should she have known? And should she be held accountable?

Unequivocally no. In order to rightly convict someone of a crime, there must be sufficient evidence by which to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the person engaged in the criminal act being alleged. Speculating that a person "should have known" that someone else had engaged or was engaging in a criminal act is not even close to meeting that standard.