This story is unavailable.

Aaron Rupar,

Why is it so inconceivable to believe that, in a forum that leaves little room for actual debate, in a setting where presence matters more than matters of presidential importance, in an atmosphere where two opponents test the potency of their respective sound bites and sundry remarks — why is it so surprising that one candidate would make a flippant comment that would elicit applause and laughter from many members of a live studio audience, at Washington University, there to witness Donald Trump challenge Hillary Clinton?

Is it likely that someone of lesser fame and influence than Mrs. Clinton, but with access to the same or similar amounts of classified information, would face jail time for having transmitted that material to individuals via a private server? Is it probable that attempts to purge much, if not all, of this content would be a prosecutable offense after having been subpoenaed by Congress not to delete any of this correspondence? Is it cause for, at a minimum, an investigation into whether the owner of that server perjured herself by denying (again, to Congress) that she never sent or received classified emails?

Now, condense these scenarios into Donald Trump’s riposte about Hillary Clinton’s reply that it is “awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” and ask yourself this: Does Trump’s comment contain more than a kernel of truth about how the FBI and the Justice Department treat otherwise anonymous citizens potentially guilty of crimes of lesser magnitude?

Is it not possible, therefore, that, by saying Clinton would be in jail if Trump were president, maybe — shocking though this scenario is to consider — his statement, far from being ripped from the pages of Hitler (here we go again) or Stalin, is simply funny?

More humorous is the fact that Hillary Clinton thinks she has the temperament to execute the laws of the United States.