she's a politician who has spent her entire adult life in politics.

you're fooling yourself if you think she's any different than any other politician. she's just had a magnifying glass over her for nearly 3 decades, and none of it ever sticks.

the faux-outrage over some of the things she's done is beyond absurd at times. falling into the "where there's smoke there's fire" trap time and time again is just stupid.

I'm not even that much of a supporter of hers, but she is an adult who is a professional and the false equivalency game some play when comparing her to Trump is grotesque in how absurd it is.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 3:49 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 3:22:05 PM

There's been practically no information that's come out from the Benghazi investigation, the FBI email investigation, or the Wikileaks leaks that has demonstrated Hillary is corrupt, there's been a lot of insinuation and Trump repeats this as much as possible, but the evidence is paper thin.

The worst thing is the fact she used a non-government email, but this still isn't that bad.

If you take a step back and realize that hillary's personal emails by the 10s of thousands have been released to the public, Podesta's emails by the thousands are now public, her diplomatic cables, she's faced 9 benghazi investigations, and the worst thing people have is merely the fact she used a private server? If you can't see how this whole thing has been a fishing expedition, that's failed miserably to actually catch anything, but served its purpose to damage Hillary's reputation, then you don't see how the system is actually broken.

Hillary had a jump in the polls after each debate, where voters actually got to see her discuss policy, but this election could be lost because the GOP controlled congress managed to kick off a fishing expedition from bogus allegations on Benghazi. This is classic politics at its worst, that Trump is capitalizing on this, while convincing his supporters that he's going to change all this-- when he's the chief purveyor of the broken system.

11/3/2016 3:25:15 PM

It isn't just the email server.

But is there not one tiny brain cell in the back corner of your mind that wonders if there was an unscrupulous motive behind that email server? I give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was just a bad idea, but I don't discount that maybe, just maybe, it was there for something else.

But the Podesta emails - that is opening up a new window into less than scrupulous things her administration has been up to. And you're right, maybe they all do it, and in this digital age, more things will start coming out from other politicians, and I hope they do, but for now, she has the microscope, so we might investigate the slides.

Hell I hope this forces future politicians to change their ways. But really, all it will change is how they censor their own content.

11/3/2016 3:27:06 PM

Quote :

"But is there not one tiny brain cell in the back corner of your mind that wonders if there was an unscrupulous motive behind that email server?"

such as....?

11/3/2016 3:29:02 PM

I think that a lot of people are looking for fire and, upon seeing something that resembles smoke, are immediately shouting "fire!"

They're assuming that Hillary is a criminal prior to viewing any of the leaked information and citing any that is less than exonerating as evidence that she is.

11/3/2016 3:30:11 PM

The fact that liberal hacks are willing to put the "trading cash for political favors for foreign governments at America's expense" under the "all politicians do it" category is what troubles me.

As does the apparent indifference over the absolutely disgraceful DNC corruption (how many resignations are we up to now? And how many will just go work for Clinton?)

You can throw out your baseless ____ism and ____phobia claims in typical leftist fashion, but if we are going to use the "everybody does it" defense I would think that would apply to a rich guy fucking sluts. Just because the DNC pays them to come forward claiming it was rape for a new headline doesn't mean the pumpkin is on any level as bad as Clinton.

11/3/2016 3:30:12 PM

I don't know, just maybe keeping some things that she didn't want on a government server to herself?

11/3/2016 3:30:26 PM

Quote :

"but if we are going to use the "everybody does it" defense I would think that would apply to a rich guy fucking sluts"

I'm out

11/3/2016 3:32:09 PM

^^ such as.....?

11/3/2016 3:33:37 PM

Quote :

"but if we are going to use the "everybody does it" defense I would think that would apply to a rich guy fucking sluts"

11/3/2016 3:34:51 PM

Quote :

"rich guy fucking sluts"

Dude you pretty much validated everybody's prejudice here regarding Trump supporters with that comment. Stupid.

11/3/2016 3:34:56 PM

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-claims-evidence-fbis-clinton-foundation-probe-impressive/story?id=43282736

Drip. Drip. Drip.

11/3/2016 3:37:32 PM

And youve validated every HRC hack stereotype by having no argument

All of the hacks here were just as unjustifiably brainwashed never-trumpets before the pussy was grabbed.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 3:38 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 3:40 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 3:37:46 PM

Quote :

"But is there not one tiny brain cell in the back corner of your mind that wonders if there was an unscrupulous motive behind that email server? I give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe it was just a bad idea, but I don't discount that maybe, just maybe, it was there for something else. "

LOL this is a weird standard isn't it? The email server was likely because she just didn't want the government having unfettered access to her emails. This is not inherently unscrupulous, and even understandable for someone who had any sense of privacy taken from them in the 90s because their husband was president and got busted for cheating (from a previous fishing expedition).

I could think of things far more unscrupulous Hillary has been associated with than the email server. The email server is such a non-issue, it's really commendable that her enemies have managed to keep it in the news cycle for almost a year, while Trump's sexual assaults lasted 2 weeks.

But as far as being unscrupulous, Trump's entire life, from grade school, is marked by unscrupulous acts. Trump prides himself in being unscrupulous. The comparison between the 2 isn't in the same ballpark.

11/3/2016 3:39:15 PM

To JCE:

Haha what, you think I'm a Hillary supporter? Have you not been reading my posts?

Jeebus man, you're incredible.

To moron:

^You mean "phishing?"

And you speak to me like I'm supporting Trump. I'm not. It's just that you can't argue in Trumps favor. There's no winning there. But people treat Hillary like she's Mother Theresa.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ^]

11/3/2016 3:39:40 PM

Moron and Shrike are tier 1 hacks, lost causes. They believe Clinton didn't know what "(c)" stood for, and think the 33k emails deleted were about yoga.

The rest can atleast pretend to look at facts

^ use your exact same logic directed at moron and apply it to me. I've become a de facto "trump supporter" to the echo-chamber just because I'm not #withher

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 3:43:19 PM

But your posts, all of them, read like a transcript from the Hannity show. You'll never convince people like Shrike of the things you're trying to get across, but you can try to understand why they think the way they do regarding Hillary. That is my goal. I honestly want to know why they throw their support to Hillary with such fervor.

Or do they realize that maybe she's not the cleanest politician, and are just holding their nose because Trump.

Because I believe in the Republican party, and I'd like to see the party put forth a respectable candidate that really will reach across the isle and get things done. I want a moderate who is right of center. My cause is lost for the next four years, possibly for a lot longer.

And I don't want to be a hack. If we could come up with a fiscally conservative, socially moderate, and environmentally friendly party, I'd be all for it.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 3:50 PM. Reason : sasd]

11/3/2016 3:47:30 PM

Quote :

"But people treat Hillary like she's Mother Theresa."

literally nobody thinks this

11/3/2016 3:53:18 PM

Quote :

"I think that a lot of people are looking for fire and, upon seeing something that resembles smoke, are immediately shouting "fire!" They're assuming that Hillary is a criminal prior to viewing any of the leaked information and citing any that is less than exonerating as evidence that she is."

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/31/13474116/clinton-prime-directive

Quote :

"The best way to understand this odd hopscotch is through the Prime Directive of Clinton investigations: We know the Clintons are guilty; the only question is what are they guilty of and when will we find the evidence? So somehow an investigation that once upon a time was about a terrorist attack on an American consulate becomes an inquiry into Freedom of Information Act compliance, which shifts into a question about handling of classified material. A probe of sexting by the husband of a woman who works for Clinton morphs into a quest for new emails, and if the emails turn out not to be new at all (which seems likely), it will morph into some new questions about Huma Abedin’s choice of which computers to use to check her emai"

..

Quote :

"You'll never convince people like Shrike of the things you're trying to get across, but you can try to understand why they think the way they do regarding Hillary. That is my goal. I honestly want to know why they throw their support to Hillary with such fervor."

Ummm, I pretty sure I've explained this multiple times: She has a proven record of advancing progressive policies throughout her entire career in politics, is incredibly experienced, and has performed well at every level of government she'd held a job. But don't take my word for it, just look at her approval ratings when she's actually in a job and not running for one.

Quote :

"Moron and Shrike are tier 1 hacks, lost causes. They believe Clinton didn't know what "(c)" stood for, and think the 33k emails deleted were about yoga. "

hahahahahahahahahaha

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 3:59:31 PM

Quote :

"That is my goal"

if that was remotely true you wouldn't ask bullshit like "well it's obvious she's corrupt as fuck even thou there's no evidence so why don't you think she's corrupt as fuck"

just because you manage to not drool on yourself like JCE doesn't make your engagement on this issue any less bad than his

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 4:01 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 3:59:56 PM

Will the non tier 1 hacks acknowledge that pay to play existed via the Clinton Foundation, with foreign governments donating to the Clinton foundation in return for favors from the Secretary of State?

And if you don't, perhaps you could explain why countries with dogshit human rights records randomly decided to be "charitable" to the secretary's foundation?

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 4:05 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 4:03:38 PM

I can't acknowledge that, because my presumption is that the Clinton Foundation is innocent of any wrongdoing until a preponderance of evidence proves otherwise.

The United States government has performed horrendous acts, but that doesn't preclude it from performing benevolent acts as well.

11/3/2016 4:15:09 PM

Quote :

"You mean "phishing?" "

Phishing and a fishing expedition are different things I think.

The letter comey sent to congress a week ago is particularly egregious. What sense does it make to write this letter because huma used the same email server as Clinton when communicating with her husband who is being investigated? If huma used a hotmail account does that mean any politician who used hotmail should be investigated?

And worst yet, they literally had no indication of wrongdoing other than the domainame.

History is not going to look back well on the FBI here. It reeks of the tactics they used to try and smear political figures in the past by leaking insinuations without any evidence.

11/3/2016 4:18:35 PM

Then why did the Saudis, or Quatar donate millions to the Clinton Foundation while dealing with secretary Clinton?

And why would the secretary use bleach bit and hammers to destroy evidence after a subpoena was issued?

11/3/2016 4:19:59 PM

You're asking why someone would donate to a globally recognized, highly rated charity, run by a well renowned president? You don't see why this is a dumb question?

And DoD wiping and physically destroying unused storage devices is a common practice in IT. NCSU has a hardware shredding service it departments are supposed to use for example.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ]

11/3/2016 4:25:10 PM

it was their contractor who wiped the data after they had a preservation order and had been subpoenaed, that is not at all the same thing

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 4:32 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 4:31:33 PM

^ right but a multi pass wipe is not unusual. The destroying the old phones thing is a complete red herring.

The it guy definitely screwed up multiple times in not executing the retention policy then trying to correct this after a subpoena.

11/3/2016 5:00:28 PM

Quote :

"You're asking why someone would donate to a globally recognized, highly rated charity, run by a well renowned president? You don't see why this is a dumb question?"

"Someone"???

I'm asking why a state sponsor of ISIS, that allows people/gays to be stoned per Shariah law, would suddenly donate $millions to the Clinton Foundation... I'm sure it had nothing to do with the fact that HRC was the Secretary of State.

11/3/2016 5:02:13 PM

lol Americans kill babies with drone bombings, should Clinton foundation stop taking American money too?

The Clinton foundation is a charity funded by donations, its not unusual or suspicious for them to raise money, even from allies and countries we're on friendly terms with.

11/3/2016 5:20:26 PM

come on

11/3/2016 5:41:17 PM

No, it's good he was honest.

This is why he is tier 1 in my official TWW partisian hack ratings with Shrike.

If you don't think the example I brought up is pay to play, or even just probable pay to play, then there isn't much to discuss. You are either in denial, brainwashed, a troll, or all 3.

11/3/2016 5:49:10 PM

Technically, Saudi Arabia isn't a state sponsor of terrorism, otherwise we wouldn't be able to sell them billions in arms every few years
http://m.state.gov/mc14151.htm

Did KSA pay her before or after she had that diplomatic cable Wikileak that pinpointed entities there as major sources of terrorist funds?

11/3/2016 6:23:43 PM

Both. It's fucking ludicrous. I wonder why they aren't designated as a terrorist state?

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/why-did-the-saudi-regime-and-other-gulf-tyrannies-donate-millions-to-the-clinton-foundation/

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 6:34 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 6:34:05 PM

Pete Williams just called the Fox News FBI story completely untrue

11/3/2016 7:01:54 PM

Did everyone forgot that the AP did a giant investigative piece on allegations of Clinton Foundation corruption and came up with squat? In fact, what they found was people who had donated to the Clinton Foundation requested or seemed to expect special treatment, but got absolutely none. So why is this still a story? Oh right...

Quote :

"We know the Clintons are guilty; the only question is what are they guilty of and when will we find the evidence?"

^^lol that Greenwald piece is a perfect example of this, he's basically stating you have to assume there's corruption even though there's absolutely no evidence of it simply because of the parties involved.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 7:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 7:12:26 PM

I did not have sexual relations with that woman

It's a vast right wing conspiracy

11/3/2016 7:15:21 PM

^what would trump say..........I did not grab her by the......

11/3/2016 7:21:35 PM

^^^
The Clintons knew that the Saudis funded terrorism, yet still took millions from them.

That is corruption in and of itself, let alone the arms sales.

It's absolutely bonkers for you to defend this arrangement.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 7:26 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 7:25:40 PM

What "arrangement"? You do understand the difference between a charitable foundation and a personal checking account, right?

11/3/2016 7:40:18 PM

Quote :

"If you don't think the example I brought up is pay to play, or even just probable pay to play, then there isn't much to discuss. You are either in denial, brainwashed, a troll, or all 3."

lol the saudis buy billions in weapons from us, sell us billions in oil, are crucial to our diplomatic and military strategy by mere virtue of their geography, yet it is a few million to help bill Clinton bring drinking water and education to poor countries that their influcemce hinges on.

Right...

11/3/2016 7:41:02 PM

^^
I do, but the Clintons seem to have some trouble with the concept.

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/27/499601267/bill-clinton-inc-wikileaks-shows-links-between-foundation-personal-cash

Also you do understand that it isn't just about money? It's power.

[Edited on November 3, 2016 at 7:58 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2016 7:57:30 PM

Quote :

" There's no evidence of inappropriate quid pro quo, though emails published by WikiLeaks suggest Hillary Clinton staffers were concerned about appearances. "

Quote :

"We know the Clintons are guilty; the only question is what are they guilty of and when will we find the evidence?"

.

11/3/2016 8:34:25 PM

*Donates $millions to Clinton Foundation*

*Meets with Clintons*

*Gets favorable deal with support from Clintons*

"Well it's not like there is an email where HRC says "I, Hillary Clinton, will accept bribes in return for political favors"

Tier 1 Hack.

11/3/2016 11:13:24 PM

a link about my previous Pete Williams post:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-news-pete-williams-reports-fbi-really-isnt-conducting-clinton-foundation-investigation/

11/3/2016 11:17:38 PM

^^ it's funny how you'll bend space and time to explain why an employer should be prejudiced against a black person because of the name on his resume, but you refuse to see the obvious explanation of why the world renowned charity of the most popular living former president might meet with wealthy donors.

It's almost like it's the job of the charity to bring in donations or something...

11/3/2016 11:45:16 PM

remember the time when clinton foundation got caught not reporting foreign donations and had to refile a few years of tax returns. good times



[Edited on November 4, 2016 at 7:26 AM. Reason : s]

11/4/2016 7:26:14 AM

member that time they got charged with a crime after they did?

oh, i guess there's no member berry for that one

11/4/2016 9:07:11 AM

^^^
why do you keep ignoring the fact that those wealthy donors also fund ISIL, which the Clintons were aware of when they accepted donations?

do you have a moral compass? i understand why shrike can't see anything wrong because he's brainwashed, but surely you know better?

[Edited on November 4, 2016 at 11:34 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2016 11:32:32 AM

LOL @ T1 hack deflecting from his mental gymnastics to try an call me racist.

You can't make this stuff up.

11/4/2016 12:43:09 PM

but you are a racist so...

11/4/2016 12:58:16 PM