subsequently declared not guilty (acquitted) of all the charges
Being acquitted doesn't mean they didn't do it.
Ask O.J. Simpson.
do you really believe if he was not cleared and clean of all charges ...Hilary would even run for President
I have no idea.
Pure speculation but I think a likely scenario would be if he wasn't acquitted she divorces him and convenience beard marries someone else that offers a road to power.
I think its absolutely ridiculous women are held accountable for their husbands choices anyway,,,,
What examples can you give?
I don't remember Michelle being held accountable for Obama's lies or choices (just her own). And that would be something easily promoted by the media.
I don't remember Laura or Barbara Bush being held accountable for the Iraq wars.
I don't remember Nancy Reagan being held accountable for Iran Contra.
I don't remember Rosalynn Carter being held accountable for Iran hostages.
I don't remember Pat Nixon being held accountable for leaving the gold standard.
never see this scrutiny with men about their wives choices,,,,its pretty preposterous
Maybe you are seeing part of the new double standard between men and women?
Like, men are irresponsible stupid lying dog players that only want sex.
Like the current zeitgeist is women don't need men.
Independent, powerful, can have it all, and do anything.
Behind every successful man is a good woman (and there are many examples of husbands giving credit to their wives/family for their own positive choices or success).
Behind every successful woman...is her own strength to get ahead, her struggles, and what she overcame in spite of evil men trying to keep her behind.
Scrutinizing men for a woman's choices would undermine the idea that men are garbage without women, and women are better off without men.
That men need women to be good, but women are inherently good by themselves.
So when a woman supports a man making bad choices, something's wrong with her, scrutinize her, he's being a guy, she's the anomaly.
When a man supports a woman making bad choices, he's just stupid and probably getting sex or something, no need to scrutinize, he doesn't influence her decisions, because women don't need men and are generally smart enough to overcome a mans influence, so her bad choices have nothing to do with him, only she should be scrutinized, her and her bad choices are the anomaly.
Maybe that's what you're seeing.
no, ANY Scrutiny should not be fair game , RELEVANT scrutiny should
No real difference.
Scrutiny is scrutiny.
You put someone under scrutiny you're looking at everything you can because you don't know how everything fits together...that's why something is scrutinized, to try and figure out what's going on because it doesn't seem right for some reason.
Any scrutiny is fair game.
Otherwise you'd have things like "Okay, Petraeus, we think there is a classified info leak. But we're only going to scrutinize your computer...we're not going to scrutinize your activities, or life, or sex life or any partners at all, any links we will ignore and not put under scrutiny, because your sex life and who you're banging isn't relevant. Only classified info leaking, and that info was on your computer, so your computer is the only thing deserving relevant scrutiny."