My answer to What is your response to those who claim that the Clinton family abides by a "different set of rules"?

Answer by Abbey Laurel-Smith:

A Latin term comes to mind, “salus populi is supreme lex” Once you know the meaning of this and how best to navigate between common law, civil law, and maybe cannon law, then you can easily present yourself as an entity – existing as “de sure” and not “de facto”

Nobody knows how best to skip through these alleys than Bill Clinton. And right from the start, he has always had his wife under that umbrella. So when next he talks about “Billary” remember the type of “immunity” that comes with it.

Granting oneself, plus the other important member of the family a divine (de facto) right is the easiest way towards a hereditary right. It is unalterable and overrides the practical necessities of applying the rules governing a state or a country – to a specific individual and engage activities. More so if he/she is covered by a President’s immunity, a several First Lady’s access, a SecDef’s.

That is what we are seeing acting out now. There is more to come, because “living by different set of rules” as a woman in a mans’ world has some issues attached to it. Queen Elizabeth I and her Scottish sister, Queen Mary (the Stuart) are the best examples that comes to mind. The rest is theory.

The Founding Fathers called it a “demiGod” syndrome, and they warned us about it. That is what the American Revolutionary Wars was all about.

What is your response to those who claim that the Clinton family abides by a "different set of rules"?