For me, yeah, this is a huge grey area, and the idea that it is in any way cut and dried is an illusion. There is a person who has been involved in 169 affairs that are questionable in American law, which is the field in which this person applies to represent, and so this is directly relevant. For example, it appears that the person did not pay labour fees that were contracted to American people, and refuses to pay those fees that were contracted. Clinton has been called a thief on this thread, but how is refusing to pay labour prices that had been agreed upon something other than theft? Is that not abuse of position? More importantly, why is there no discussion of whether it is or not?
Why does a single suit legitimately represent an umbrella for a range of crucial concerns, but 169 suits represents no concern at all? This is a person who seeks to enter politics on the strength of a business acumen; why then the studious resistance to examine the business history?
When I see these lawsuits regarding labour theft, what my thought is, is that "This person's commitment to established American fair labour law and to individual and collective American people and workers is questionable." For other people, as you will see in recent responses to this thread, "These lawsuits are categorically insubstantial or qualitatively separate from the politics of this person", or even "I don't care about those lawsuits and I am not interested in finding out about them, because no one can possibly be as wicked as Clinton."
Why the vast chasm of interest between the single federal lawsuit that has now been exonerated through long established legal practice and reported on by a highly educated and experienced spokesperson... against the 169 federal lawsuits of which many are outstanding?
I don't think I can grasp the significance of the entirely different standards here. Honestly.
