Wolf and Lamb argument once again

A search of the blog yielded twenty posts that referenced the Aesop's Fable of the Lamb and the Wolf.  I think we could be witnessing the same drama unfold as the one depicted in the fable.

The moral of the fable was the proposition that force always gets the better of an argument.  The lamb argues with the wolf, but the argument is in vain, because the wolf will do whatever he pleases anyway.  Thus, the wolf eats the lamb unconditionally.  Force overwhelms all arguments the lamb had in his own defense.

Now, in this email controversy, who is the wolf and who is the lamb?  Is Hillary a victim?  Are her accusers doing so in disregard of law and justice?  Or, are her accusers correct and; in response to the just accusation, is she behaving as a she-wolf,  who will do whatever she pleases regardless of the law?

The law assumes innocence until proven guilty, but that may not even be allowed to take place.  If there's no indictment, then a court of law cannot determine guilt according to the law.  Probable cause has already been established in terms of an investigation.  A grand jury could be empaneled to decide whether or not a trial should be held in order to determine if guilt can be found beyond reasonable doubt.

No indictment being sought means that those in charge of enforcing the law refuse to carry out their responsibilities.  If the FBI recommends an indictment, one must be sought.  To refuse an indictment is a political act.  It is a wolfish act in and of itself.   Since the indictment of a former official of the administration is at issue here, the only justification for not seeking an indictment would be to avoid political embarrassment, because such embarrassment may be a factor in the outcome of an election.

Is there rule of law anymore, or is it the law of the jungle, where the stronger party can devour the weaker party at will?  Such would be the case if a recommendation of an indictment is ignored or refused.  The wolf would have won the argument again.