I'll give you the point on being technically correct (and Chaffetz being full of...) but counter that by that logic she's been under FBI investigation this whole time.
Interesting. Has there ever been a Fortune 500 board of directors in a CEO selection process under way with a CEO candidate personally under FBI investigation say, "oh, that's okay, you're still one of our two top choices"? If not, it is a peculiar juxtaposition.
While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?
There aren't any parallels in the corporate world I can point to. Being under federal investigation would be like wearing skunk cologne to any sane corporate board.
> While an investigation most assuredly does not pass the "guilty until proven innocent" bar, CEO's have been summarily fired by boards or left for the good of the company simply for being personally under FBI investigation. For the political geeks/wonks among us, can you please explain to this layperson how Clinton's situation differs?
Short answer is that she's a Clinton and in control (whether direct or indirect) of the entire DNC and it's delegates. The Clinton's are a big part of the DNC money machine, raising money across the organization so everybody owes them favors. They'd ignore anything like this out of fear of spiting her or WJC unless it were criminal not to do so (say if she were convicted).