Senate from AK maybe.
But “frivolous ethics complaints from ‘Rat operatives that were hamstringing her ability to govern and threatening to personally bankrupt her and her family with legal fee”
you see that changing some how in a run for Pres ?
Yes. She's now free of the specific law that, while in the Governor's office, was abused to harass her into bankruptcy (even setting up a legal defense fund was deemed an "ethics violation"). Additionally, the personal wealth she's accumulated on the speaker's circuit would insulate her and her family from any additional baseless legal challenges.
I don't know if she's planning on running. Either way, she does need to avoid the "in-or-out" tap dance and make her intentions clear up-front. If she's running, give her a fair evaluation based on the campaign she runs, and not the media caricature she's currently made out to be.
We're the side the evaluates on merit, right? If she runs, and if she puts together a strong organization, and if she effectively addresses her assumed negatives, then she would likely be a very strong candidate. If she doesn't, then the question kind of answers itself, does it not?
But what is wrong is to outright dismiss someone who has the potential of making an impact because of current assumptions about their "viability". Why the rush to judgement?