Fascinating issue. I have read some of the responses from others and, at the risk of inflaming the passions of my fellow readers, my thoughts do not conform to that of the majority. I will share this: the issue being addressed by the FBI was whether there was a reasonable prospect of conviction for a criminal offense. The answer is clearly “no”. However, as an aside, the police [FBI] do not make that determination – only the prosecutor makes that finding and it appears that William Clinton’s impromptu meeting with the AG likely passed the ball back to the FBI director. It was odd that the FBI Director was saddled with making that decision for the prosecution. However, he is right. Ms. Clinton may have been negligent or careless, or even reckless, but neither of those amount to a finding of the requisite mens rea [guilty mind] for guilt. The offense is not a strict liability offense – it is a mens rea offense where the Crown or Prosecution must prove intent. Conviction carries with it a term of imprisonment, so the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intentionally and voluntarily [the actus reus] committed the offense. Clearly, they can prove the actus reus [the act of sending the e-mail], but there is not a shred of evidence that could establish the mens rea. Therefore, conviction was impossible. She was not being investigated for lying. Even that would have failed because she had a reasonably held belief that what she was saying was true – it turns out that her recollections were not accurate – that does not amount to a criminal offense or a “lie”. Applying your own human experience, we have all encountered a situation where years after an event you believe it to be “green” but then it is shown that it was actually “blue” – does that mean you were lying? No, you were mistaken. The frailty of the human mind is that our memories fade with time – they don’t get better (ever). Mr. Trump may be the exception to that human truth, at least he will tell you that if asked [or not asked].

Many would have said throughout, as Mr. Trump did, that she was guilty and a liar. I would hear this and shake my head because if one is a trained lawyer one would know that the burden of proof could not be discharged in this case. It was a public show, similar to the foolish investigation of Mr. Clinton’s affairs. Ms. Clinton is a brilliant lady, competent lawyer, but she is a poor historian and untrained politician. One can show inconsistencies which the public will use to support the argument that she is not “trustworthy” – that is a subjective opinion. However, looked at objectively, the connection between the two is frail.

Sadly, both she and Mr. Trump appear to question the benefits of free trade. Everything Mr. Trump says on this topic [as do the Brexit supporters] contradicts the HOS-trade model [Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson trade theory] and even the Ricardian free trade argument. The HOS trade theory is the backbone of modern free trade. To me, of the two, Ms. Clinton is a better choice for the global markets. Mr. Trump thinks he can renegotiate NAFTA or even the GATT [General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade] – foolishness. Mr. Trump would reject the standing of “most favored nation” and turn trade in to a bi-lateral exercise. It shows he knows nothing about the law and even less about the benefits of free trade, be it comparative advantage or absolute advantage. The press have not fully discussed Mr. Trump’s integrity (or lack of it) – his use of bankruptcy laws is very, very troubling – he left his creditors high and dry for a “better deal” [which is what he wants to do with NAFTA]. He is now in litigation over Trump University and now bathes himself in the victim role by attacking the Judge hearing the case. This is really in an attempt to cover up his misdeeds. He will lose that fight for sure and he knows he is guilty – either civil or criminally.

Therefore, I watched the video three times. It did not alter my previous determination or assessment. It is a snap shot of various statements taken out of context and judged by the light of perfection. It is a standard to which no one can live up to and should never be expected. Perhaps our American friends are left with the choice of the lesser of 2 evils. They will like vote to protect their self-interest [economically] and perhaps pick the one with the least warts, so to speak. Regardless, the negative impact on the markets will be short-term if Ms. Clinton is elected BUT will likely be negative much, much longer in the event that Mr. Trump is their leader. The reason is that he would like to implement vast structural and foundational changes [build a wall, stop immigration, target China,…..] which will have profound negative implications for an aging demographic. Ms. Clinton appears to be more enlightened. She will also have the counsel of her husband – the 8 years of his presidency was one of the most GDP-growth expansion phases in US history. The 8 years after that – well, not so much.

My kindest regards;

I don’t think you should be publishing political commentary to your subscribers.
Should I begin to assume that you are now taking a political view of the actions of companies and that the political affiliations of their leadership will begin to be a criteria in your advice?

Clinton Loyalists routinely find themselves under the bus. The Clintons are a tag team from hell, every time they open their mouths you can smell sulphur. The entire upper echelon of the US Gov. seems to be implicated.
With corruption, follow the money. Disseminated Risk and Concentrated Benefit favour Key financial executives and hurt everyone else, not just Americans. Also my info says look east, all the way to the House of Saud particularly and OPEC generally who’s interest are enhanced by a weaker North American oil industry .

Is Trump the answer, I’m not sure, but I believe the US will survive him, I’m not sure America would survive Hillary.