Government often justifies its actions by stating that the decision was for the “greater good.” For example, when the government takes an action that goes against the will of the people, the outcome is deemed as justifiable because, in the government’s mind, the action benefits the greater good. Of course, that interpretation is often influenced by politics, greed, and or course, lobbyists. The major problem with this line of reasoning is that someone or some group always gets the shaft. When a politician makes promises during the campaign and then does not keep them once elected, he or she may justify the broken promises as being for the greater good.
If we were to examine the actions of Congress (and the presidents) throughout time, we would find that the philosophy of “the greater good” excuse has been overused. Take the case against General Petraeus who failed to properly handle classified material and the current issue of Ms Clinton and her private server that was used for classified email? General Petraeus made a mistake and admitted it. His crime was nothing compared to the current Clinton email scandal and potential damage to America.
Everyone except Ms Clinton understands that her actions were not in keeping with proper procedures of handling classified materials. In the minds of most Americans, she has committed serious crimes against the US and has likely put the lives of various intelligence agents and others in jeopardy.
Will the FBI recommend prosecution? Will her behavior and actions be overlooked? Will she be indicted? Will Mr Obama pardon her if she is found guilty? Any of the above may happen. If the Attorney General charges her, the President may pardon her and claim his action was justifiable “for the greater good” that she NOT serve time in jail and/or be fined. After all, how would it look to the rest of the world if the US actually sent the ex Secretary of State to jail?
Their excuse… the greater good would NOT be served by sending her to jail.