How exactly has that worked out with the UN and WTO so far? Has China stopped increasing industry, stopped expanding territory? How about Russia and India? DPRK? I know, the UAE is all "Green" right? You should really consider visiting the real world sometimes, it would make the argument much less one sided.
Trump won on platform, and was the only person putting forth any platform. Immigration reform and protecting the US/Mexico border was the first part of his speeches and people latched on. Politicians have barely paid those issues lip service in the last 40 years, let alone done anything to fix it. In fact many will argue that the Democrats want more of the same because it increases their voting base.
Trump actively questioned the decisions in keeping the US at war in the Middle East where thousands of US Soldiers have been killed and hundreds of thousands have suffered permanent disability. The President and Hillary planned and achieved massive destabilization in the Middle East and Africa. They failed to hold VA executives accountable for failures which have led to the suicides of thousands of vets and exacerbated health issues.
Trump actively discussed the unfair economics at play which has greatly increased wealth disparity in the US, the massive amounts of unemployment and underemployment, and massive reduction in the middle class.
Trump actively talked about media and political corruption, which was made very transparent despite the efforts of the people involved in corruption and holding power. Drain the Swamp should ring a bell.
Trump sending mean tweets was the only thing the media talked about, but people saw him talking and heard the messages on platform which the media happily ignored.
Compared to Hillary who wanted to do everything President Obama did but times 10. She only latched on to immigration because she saw how much she was losing and tried to pull base Democrats back to her side. Even then, like so many issues, people simply found no way to believe what she said she would do.
I have said for years that we were due for a soft revolution, and that is exactly what happened. I have posted numerous times that Trump has a great shot because the average American is fed up. If the soft revolution does not work, we will get to a hard revolution. As I have also said, we hope it does not need to get to that point. Democracy still works, and that fact alone has given a huge number of people hope. Corrupt cronies don't always win, and people's voices are still heard.
My point is that there is no World Government so there is no way to enforce World rules on things like Carbon. That is a statement of fact, not an advocacy for something that does not exist. Put your tin foil hat back on, you are embarrassing yourself.
The three examples I gave would not play the games with Hillary in office either. The world won't end with Trump being the President, based on the Hope and Change message of Barack Obama we can safely say prejudging has no merit. Me thinks you are being what we like to call a sore loser.
Without world government nothing will change. Dumping money to invisible entities for carbon will only impact people that volunteer. Meanwhile, developing countries and others (China, India, Russia) will continue to use industrial development (aka high polluters) and surpass others in production and development.
MAD doctrine seems to be the only viable option. We destroy ourselves if we take positive action, or destroy everyone at the same time if we don't.
You have evidence that only President Obama gets unscripted questions? Nope, you don't. You believe that voter roles are clean and that you need more than just a name and address to vote? That is untrue too. In States that refuse to adopt or enforce ID for voters, it's actually as easy to cheat as it is to remember a name, street number, and address. Hard for an illegal that just got here and does not speak English? Not really. There is a small percentage of States that enforce ID to vote, but the overwhelming majority do not.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The second part of the question is simply a statement affirming the full context of the question, which as you point out very clearly defined non-citizens in the voting pool. As to whether these things are scripted, almost every single show is scripted even when it's not the POTUS. Believing he would get treated worse than Hillary is pretty damn foolish.
Your extrapolation of the question is wrong, especially considering the actress^W"reporter" emphasized illegal immigrants in her question. Nobody in their right mind would believe that any other entry in the list would question voting rights.
Call me a skeptic, but I have rarely seen unscripted questions and answers in these sessions. If you believe President Obama is simply a moron who can't understand English okay. I happen to think he does understand English and gave the scripted answer to a scripted question. Perhaps I am too skeptical and cynical at this point, but recent events have cemented my position.
Have you ever watched Bill O'Reilly or Megan Kelly? They repeat the same talking points as the other MSM and for the most part allow narratives to run unchecked. The only people on that network who are pro-Trump is Hannity and part timer Jeanine Pirro.
Advertising looking for "favorable" traits can also be used to discriminate. Interestingly I have not seen any proof that discrimination occurred, but that the tagging system would allow such (obviously).
The SJWs deserve much pain as they eat themselves.
The USCs involved DO NOT have intent as a qualifier anywhere in them. They are strictly "yes you did" or "no you did not" mishandle classified information. Go read the USC so you don't have to speak from ignorance.
FWIW, the whole argument against Comey from Gowdy is exactly that fact. Nowhere else is intent measured in determining whether or not the law was broken. If Intent was considered, Snowden would not have had to flee the US and Manning would not be in jail. They leaked because Whistle blower laws were NOT working. So how about we petition the US Government to drop all charges against Snowden and allow him to return with full honors? His intent was better than Clinton's "I did it because it was easy" claims (and if you believe that as opposed to avoiding FOIA, I have some swamp land to sell you.)
Obama pardoning her would not pardon himself. Trump winning on Tuesday would be a big tell, because you will see the pardon lists starting then. There is a whole lot of mess involved in this, and I'm sure he's smart enough to weigh the options. Him pardoning Clinton would not end the investigations, and in fact it would probably accelerate them greatly. President Obama could look really really bad when things are all done. We know for a fact that he was emailing Clinton at her private server. Who knows what else shows up with him involved?
The charges and facts so far against Clinton make Watergate look tiny and the number of people allegedly involved dwarfs Nixon and a couple staffers.
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
Hacked servers are generally not advertised, especially high value targets. According to the FBI there are fingerprints on the server from at least 5 different foreign agencies. That does not "prove" she was hacked but it would be safe to assume she was. She was running MS Exchange on the Public Internet for pity sake, and if you know anything about Email you know that it's not used as an internet facing server because it's so easy to exploit. Which is why every single company I have ever seen or worked at runs a Gateway (Sendmail/Postfix/etc..) service outside and Exchange inside (if they run Exchange at all).
The only way most companies know they have been hacked is because hackers start sending spam or running a DDOS service. This is IT Security 101 stuff here, so you are quite a ways behind on homework.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else
NOT SO FAST! President Obama does not have special regulations on document handling. These are US Government Codes (laws). "better than anyone else" should have stated "illegally like nobody else did". You stand up all kinds of strawman arguments as a defense, but she is the only person to have ever setup a private server for Government use despite being told numerous times she could not. On the record from the FBI there are at least a dozen warnings about this, including 2 people working at the State Department told to ~Never mention the private server again~.
In your hundreds of times being stopped by the cops were you carrying classified documents in violation of law? Well your personal anecdote is useless because, because you know that is not the case.
FWIW, I am an Army Vet, DOD contractor, and currently hold a clearance for my job. Special access programs require you to read and take an oath which covers the law. You sign the agreement which generally includes statements regarding "Violation is subject to penalty under USC up to, and including Treason." I have seen people arrested for violating law, and most of those arrests were for careless handling of data. You are Court Martial-ed in the Military and at a minimum dishonorably discharged for violations. Civilian side varies, but you don't keep your clearance or your job if you violate USC.
Oh, I get it. Don't bring facts and documented history into conversations and the Leftists will be happy. There is a sad reality with most people on the left. Do you know how many people on the left complain about Ann Coulter yet have never read a single book and can't discount a single fact she provides in her book? Answer is anecdotal, but 100% of the people on the Left I speak with have that exact affliction. None have read Marx, Friedman, Aristotle, Rand, Machiavelli, Adam Smith, the Federalist papers (yes, any of them), Quigley, and though they claim to have read Plato it tends to be just the fragments stuffed into an Intro to Philosophy class.
Contrarily people on the right tend to have studied, usually not all, but many of these works. They have to, so they can defend themselves from Leftist propaganda and Sophistry used against the masses.
But hey, grats on being an ignorant fool who can not tell fact from fiction. Or pretending as much.
He promised to end the war by working with other countries and using military tactics instead of political war gaming. The latter being the main reasons we lost in Korea and Vietnam by the way. Ending a war started long ago, and exacerbated by the current political class, is not "starting" anything.
I should have added a few facts to back my assertions. Whitewater led to 15 Felony convictions, so this is not merely speculation or allegation. Bill Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones for 850,000.00, again not speculation or allegation. Chinagate ended with an award of 900,000 to Judicial Watch and people fleeing the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton later pardoned Marc Rich who is the person who fled prosecution. Again, not speculation or allegation.
Did I at any point say she was found guilty? No, I did not. Did those scandals have impact on the USA? Yes they did. Is there enough reason to look at those and distrust the character of the person involved? Yes, there is. Is there any reason to look at the current financial status of the Clinton's and have distrust? Yes, there is.
Unfortunately for you I have actually studied most of these issues having quite a few years on most Slashdot posters. Most of that list have tremendous factual backing, but according to prosecutors lacked enough evidence to prosecute. I don't dismiss subjects because someone told me they were false, I actually read all relevant materials. The lack of prosecution does not remove facts. It's important to note that I didn't list what I consider hard to prove conspiracy that you could find on the Clinton's pretty easily. Such as the latest Podesta emails.
I gave the source in the first paragraph, as well as the explanation. Would you care to discount that those scandals existed with facts? I was around through most of those scandals being the lead topics on every major station for months. The Government was basically shut down during the impeachment process while we listened to Bill try to provide new definition to the word "is". Yeah, the bias is strong with you.
Even though Google is attempting to censor searching for Clinton's scandals they are still visible. Mostly based on this, but I added some missed.
Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached. Hillary is not "pro-woman" as her and pundits will attempt to claim.
Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.
Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.
Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.
Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.
Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.
Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.
Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.
Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.
Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.
Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.
The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.
The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.
Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?
Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.
Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.
Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.
Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?
The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.
Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.
Watergate: Committee chairman stated that if he had the power to fire her he would have. “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Juanita Broaddrick: Another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Paula Jones: Yet another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Nope, it's not the "woman" thing people have problems with. We have problems with an extremely long list of scandals and concern for self interests and self preservation. Politicians are supposed to be there for the people, and the Clinton's have left a legacy of doing the exact opposite. Their vast fortune gathered while she held public office and encyclopedic list of legal troubles should tell you all you need to know.
Slashdot Mirror
How exactly has that worked out with the UN and WTO so far? Has China stopped increasing industry, stopped expanding territory? How about Russia and India? DPRK? I know, the UAE is all "Green" right? You should really consider visiting the real world sometimes, it would make the argument much less one sided.
Trump won on platform, and was the only person putting forth any platform. Immigration reform and protecting the US/Mexico border was the first part of his speeches and people latched on. Politicians have barely paid those issues lip service in the last 40 years, let alone done anything to fix it. In fact many will argue that the Democrats want more of the same because it increases their voting base.
Trump actively questioned the decisions in keeping the US at war in the Middle East where thousands of US Soldiers have been killed and hundreds of thousands have suffered permanent disability. The President and Hillary planned and achieved massive destabilization in the Middle East and Africa. They failed to hold VA executives accountable for failures which have led to the suicides of thousands of vets and exacerbated health issues.
Trump actively discussed the unfair economics at play which has greatly increased wealth disparity in the US, the massive amounts of unemployment and underemployment, and massive reduction in the middle class.
Trump actively talked about media and political corruption, which was made very transparent despite the efforts of the people involved in corruption and holding power. Drain the Swamp should ring a bell.
Trump sending mean tweets was the only thing the media talked about, but people saw him talking and heard the messages on platform which the media happily ignored.
Compared to Hillary who wanted to do everything President Obama did but times 10. She only latched on to immigration because she saw how much she was losing and tried to pull base Democrats back to her side. Even then, like so many issues, people simply found no way to believe what she said she would do.
I have said for years that we were due for a soft revolution, and that is exactly what happened. I have posted numerous times that Trump has a great shot because the average American is fed up. If the soft revolution does not work, we will get to a hard revolution. As I have also said, we hope it does not need to get to that point. Democracy still works, and that fact alone has given a huge number of people hope. Corrupt cronies don't always win, and people's voices are still heard.
My point is that there is no World Government so there is no way to enforce World rules on things like Carbon. That is a statement of fact, not an advocacy for something that does not exist. Put your tin foil hat back on, you are embarrassing yourself.
The three examples I gave would not play the games with Hillary in office either. The world won't end with Trump being the President, based on the Hope and Change message of Barack Obama we can safely say prejudging has no merit. Me thinks you are being what we like to call a sore loser.
So, saying that something does not exist translates to "but yours is wrong" somehow in your mind? You may want to check your critical thought process.
Without world government nothing will change. Dumping money to invisible entities for carbon will only impact people that volunteer. Meanwhile, developing countries and others (China, India, Russia) will continue to use industrial development (aka high polluters) and surpass others in production and development.
MAD doctrine seems to be the only viable option. We destroy ourselves if we take positive action, or destroy everyone at the same time if we don't.
GP stated that Fox was pro-Trump, and my argument was that they are not pro-Trump. WOW! Pure intellectual genius! YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT!
You have evidence that only President Obama gets unscripted questions? Nope, you don't. You believe that voter roles are clean and that you need more than just a name and address to vote? That is untrue too. In States that refuse to adopt or enforce ID for voters, it's actually as easy to cheat as it is to remember a name, street number, and address. Hard for an illegal that just got here and does not speak English? Not really. There is a small percentage of States that enforce ID to vote, but the overwhelming majority do not.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The second part of the question is simply a statement affirming the full context of the question, which as you point out very clearly defined non-citizens in the voting pool. As to whether these things are scripted, almost every single show is scripted even when it's not the POTUS. Believing he would get treated worse than Hillary is pretty damn foolish.
Your extrapolation of the question is wrong, especially considering the actress^W"reporter" emphasized illegal immigrants in her question. Nobody in their right mind would believe that any other entry in the list would question voting rights.
Call me a skeptic, but I have rarely seen unscripted questions and answers in these sessions. If you believe President Obama is simply a moron who can't understand English okay. I happen to think he does understand English and gave the scripted answer to a scripted question. Perhaps I am too skeptical and cynical at this point, but recent events have cemented my position.
Have you ever watched Bill O'Reilly or Megan Kelly? They repeat the same talking points as the other MSM and for the most part allow narratives to run unchecked. The only people on that network who are pro-Trump is Hannity and part timer Jeanine Pirro.
Propaganda only works when real world information is suppressed. GP may know better than you what censorship is.
Advertising looking for "favorable" traits can also be used to discriminate. Interestingly I have not seen any proof that discrimination occurred, but that the tagging system would allow such (obviously).
The SJWs deserve much pain as they eat themselves.
Not relevant to the conversation. Try to read and keep up with the big people
The USCs involved DO NOT have intent as a qualifier anywhere in them. They are strictly "yes you did" or "no you did not" mishandle classified information. Go read the USC so you don't have to speak from ignorance.
FWIW, the whole argument against Comey from Gowdy is exactly that fact. Nowhere else is intent measured in determining whether or not the law was broken. If Intent was considered, Snowden would not have had to flee the US and Manning would not be in jail. They leaked because Whistle blower laws were NOT working. So how about we petition the US Government to drop all charges against Snowden and allow him to return with full honors? His intent was better than Clinton's "I did it because it was easy" claims (and if you believe that as opposed to avoiding FOIA, I have some swamp land to sell you.)
Obama pardoning her would not pardon himself. Trump winning on Tuesday would be a big tell, because you will see the pardon lists starting then. There is a whole lot of mess involved in this, and I'm sure he's smart enough to weigh the options. Him pardoning Clinton would not end the investigations, and in fact it would probably accelerate them greatly. President Obama could look really really bad when things are all done. We know for a fact that he was emailing Clinton at her private server. Who knows what else shows up with him involved?
The charges and facts so far against Clinton make Watergate look tiny and the number of people allegedly involved dwarfs Nixon and a couple staffers.
That is what Weiner calls "Flexing his muscle" you insensitive clod!
Actually when it comes to email security her private server is not known to have ever been hacked, but the State Department email system did get hacked during the same time.
Hacked servers are generally not advertised, especially high value targets. According to the FBI there are fingerprints on the server from at least 5 different foreign agencies. That does not "prove" she was hacked but it would be safe to assume she was. She was running MS Exchange on the Public Internet for pity sake, and if you know anything about Email you know that it's not used as an internet facing server because it's so easy to exploit. Which is why every single company I have ever seen or worked at runs a Gateway (Sendmail/Postfix/etc..) service outside and Exchange inside (if they run Exchange at all).
The only way most companies know they have been hacked is because hackers start sending spam or running a DDOS service. This is IT Security 101 stuff here, so you are quite a ways behind on homework.
Clearly she didn't follow President Obama's transparency directives any better than anybody else
NOT SO FAST! President Obama does not have special regulations on document handling. These are US Government Codes (laws). "better than anyone else" should have stated "illegally like nobody else did". You stand up all kinds of strawman arguments as a defense, but she is the only person to have ever setup a private server for Government use despite being told numerous times she could not. On the record from the FBI there are at least a dozen warnings about this, including 2 people working at the State Department told to ~Never mention the private server again~.
In your hundreds of times being stopped by the cops were you carrying classified documents in violation of law? Well your personal anecdote is useless because, because you know that is not the case.
FWIW, I am an Army Vet, DOD contractor, and currently hold a clearance for my job. Special access programs require you to read and take an oath which covers the law. You sign the agreement which generally includes statements regarding "Violation is subject to penalty under USC up to, and including Treason." I have seen people arrested for violating law, and most of those arrests were for careless handling of data. You are Court Martial-ed in the Military and at a minimum dishonorably discharged for violations. Civilian side varies, but you don't keep your clearance or your job if you violate USC.
Oh, I get it. Don't bring facts and documented history into conversations and the Leftists will be happy. There is a sad reality with most people on the left. Do you know how many people on the left complain about Ann Coulter yet have never read a single book and can't discount a single fact she provides in her book? Answer is anecdotal, but 100% of the people on the Left I speak with have that exact affliction. None have read Marx, Friedman, Aristotle, Rand, Machiavelli, Adam Smith, the Federalist papers (yes, any of them), Quigley, and though they claim to have read Plato it tends to be just the fragments stuffed into an Intro to Philosophy class.
Contrarily people on the right tend to have studied, usually not all, but many of these works. They have to, so they can defend themselves from Leftist propaganda and Sophistry used against the masses.
But hey, grats on being an ignorant fool who can not tell fact from fiction. Or pretending as much.
He promised to end the war by working with other countries and using military tactics instead of political war gaming. The latter being the main reasons we lost in Korea and Vietnam by the way. Ending a war started long ago, and exacerbated by the current political class, is not "starting" anything.
Did you bother to read the first paragraph and check the link? Good grief, I get not reading the list but the first damn sentence gets lost? WTF
I should have added a few facts to back my assertions. Whitewater led to 15 Felony convictions, so this is not merely speculation or allegation. Bill Clinton settled out of court with Paula Jones for 850,000.00, again not speculation or allegation. Chinagate ended with an award of 900,000 to Judicial Watch and people fleeing the country to avoid prosecution. Clinton later pardoned Marc Rich who is the person who fled prosecution. Again, not speculation or allegation.
Did I at any point say she was found guilty? No, I did not. Did those scandals have impact on the USA? Yes they did. Is there enough reason to look at those and distrust the character of the person involved? Yes, there is. Is there any reason to look at the current financial status of the Clinton's and have distrust? Yes, there is.
Unfortunately for you I have actually studied most of these issues having quite a few years on most Slashdot posters. Most of that list have tremendous factual backing, but according to prosecutors lacked enough evidence to prosecute. I don't dismiss subjects because someone told me they were false, I actually read all relevant materials. The lack of prosecution does not remove facts. It's important to note that I didn't list what I consider hard to prove conspiracy that you could find on the Clinton's pretty easily. Such as the latest Podesta emails.
I gave the source in the first paragraph, as well as the explanation. Would you care to discount that those scandals existed with facts? I was around through most of those scandals being the lead topics on every major station for months. The Government was basically shut down during the impeachment process while we listened to Bill try to provide new definition to the word "is". Yeah, the bias is strong with you.
Even though Google is attempting to censor searching for Clinton's scandals they are still visible. Mostly based on this, but I added some missed.
Monica Lewinsky: Led to only the second president in American history to be impeached. Hillary is not "pro-woman" as her and pundits will attempt to claim.
Benghazi: Four Americans killed, an entire system of weak diplomatic security uncloaked, and the credibility of a president and his secretary of state damaged.
Asia fundraising scandal: More than four dozen convicted in a scandal that made the Lincoln bedroom, White House donor coffees and Buddhist monks infamous.
Hillary’s private emails: Hundreds of national secrets already leaked through private email and the specter of a criminal probe looming large.
Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison.
Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era.
Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement.
Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons.
Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor.
Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records.
Filegate: The Clinton use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies.
Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell.
The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history.
The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions.
Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering?
Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time.
Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public.
Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract.
Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience?
The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire.
Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch.
Watergate: Committee chairman stated that if he had the power to fire her he would have. “She was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
Juanita Broaddrick: Another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Paula Jones: Yet another woman attacked and threatened by Hillary who brought rape allegations against Bill Clinton.
Nope, it's not the "woman" thing people have problems with. We have problems with an extremely long list of scandals and concern for self interests and self preservation. Politicians are supposed to be there for the people, and the Clinton's have left a legacy of doing the exact opposite. Their vast fortune gathered while she held public office and encyclopedic list of legal troubles should tell you all you need to know.