There are some legitimate reasons to question whether or not Hillary has the kind of “Presidential respect” for the rule of law required for the job — in a democracy, it is in fact critical to hold candidates to this kind of scrutiny. And for a political figure who has been in the public eye for over 40 years, it is impossible to have not made mistakes, or taken policy positions that later become clear were unwise, or to take some sort of controversial action that leaves a dangling thread of doubt to be worried over for decades.
Mathematically there is a skewing effect that Donald Trump gets to take advantage of by virtue of his complete absence in civic participation until now. We can’t scrutinize his read on the rule of law by his past actions, because there aren’t any to look at. What we *do* have the benefit of are his explicit statements throughout the campaign, and especially at the Republican convention, where it became crystal clear that the “rule of law” is liable to be the first thing “disrupted” by Trump.
So yes, let’s scrutinize Hillary’s past and evaluate her fitness for the job — but it is unconscionable at this point to not be applying the same scrutiny to her opponent, because these are the stakes now. We will be stuck with our choice for the next 4 years, and our choice is between the candidate who has served the public for an entire lifetime & has a real track record with real actions we have a duty to examine for fit in terms of whether or not we believe she intends to uphold the laws and values of our country while in office, and an opposing candidate who has explicitly expressed contempt for those laws and values. We have to weigh our natural suspicion of Clinton’s intent towards our country’s institutions against the historically unprecedented admissions of Trump to intentionally and forcefully run roughshod all over them.