Yes, the sexual stuff is very illuminating about Bill Clinton's character, but I've seen no evidence that he did anything illegal.
Well, we have multiple credible women explaining that he abused and in some cases raped them. I know, they were smeared and intimidated by Hillary's PIs and operatives, but still won't shut up about it, but that's not evidence as you see it.
He presumably knows the law
And yet was found in contempt and was disbarred over his conduct.
Once again (though you're trying SO hard to wish it away), the issue here isn't Bill Clinton's lying in front of a judge during a suit and in related deposition, or his terrible judgement, or Lewinsky (I notice you're carefully avoiding the multiple women who say he very much DID use his power to harass and even raped). No, the issue here is Hillary Clinton's active engagement in sending out operatives (using your tax dollars!) to smear the reputations and wreck the lives and careers of the women her husband pursued and abused (and raped). SHE is the one running for president this time around (though she has promised Bill would play an active role in governing from the White House), so her abuses of power and her vindictive, women-abusing behavior are very much on the table. That's what makes it worth re-examining her support of Bill has he harassed and abused women. I know, you don't like all of that, because it suggests the truth about her rampant hypocrisy. Too bad.
Sexual harassment is illegal, actually. And the whole point was that Clinton was being sued for having done exactly that to a subordinate employee previously. Yes, he could have countered that it's not harassment (despite the outsized lopsidedness of the power equation) as long as she was "willing" - and she did seem to be willing. But multiple women subject to his employer/political power had previously pointed out his abuse and their unwillingness to be subject to it. The Lewinsky business lies on that spectrum, and his willingness to lie about it, and Hillary Clinton's eagerness to smear reputations and try to wreck the lives of women her predatory husband pursued... that's illuminating, character-wise.
Yes. For example, the Japanese definitely made "a mistake" attacking Pearl Harbor. But if you limit your description of that "mistake" as simply being "a mistake" and not just one piece of a much larger picture, then you're being a deliberate fool. Yes, one could use the word "mistake" in place of "ill conceived long-term strategic flaw fueled by hubris and toxic ethics," but the only reason you'd try to tamp it all down that way is because you support the person who embodies those flaws, and you LIKE those flaws if that's what gets you the political power you want.
Hillary has repeatedly admitted that using a personal email server was a mistake.
Which is, as you know, a completely BS thing to say. She didn't "make a mistake" (other than in the sense that she didn't understand the inevitability of being caught), she deliberately and purposefully set out to get around federal rules and laws regarding record keeping and the handling of sensitive information. That wasn't a mistake, it was completely deliberate. And her incessant lying about it ever since makes that very plain. You don't dole out immunity like candy to her staff over "a mistake."
Actually, a whole lot of people care. Especially the ones that would personally lose their careers and quite possibly their liberty if they did even a fraction of what the FBI says Clinton did. People care because it services as a grand example of Clinton's corruption and her career-long habit of looking you in the eye and lying to you over and over again. You don't care about her lying because you want her to be president. You LIKE that she lies. You're proud of it. You are happy to have her lying in order to get political power in the hands of someone that you think is allied with your world view. But saying that "nobody" cares? That's just wishful thinking on your part. Many millions of people actually DO care that she's a corrupt liar who's made a career out of enriching her family the public trough.
This is just a witch hunt... just like Benghazi and Whitewater and a bunch of other "scandals".
You mean just like Benghazi, where we see that she was indeed looking you in the eye and lying to you about what happened, all for political reasons right before an election? And where in the course of looking into what happened, it was found that she completely blew off all of the rules and laws surrounding federal record-keeping, and was handling classified data in her house and passing it around to uncleared staff and lawyers? That Benghazi?
And do you meant the Whitewater affair that uncovered all sorts of lawbreaking and classic Clintonian throwing-under-the-bus of other people, including Clinton loyalists, in order to avoid prosecution? That Whitewater?
I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
No, you mean you're sick and tired of stories that remind you how your preferred candidate gets special treatment in order to avoid indictment. Some of the rest of us are sick and tired of those stories too, but for different reasons.
So, which sensitive data, exactly? Did you actually read the reports? No question the private email server betrayed extremely poor judgment, but this is just silly.
So you're going to pretend that in all of this coverage, for a year and half and counting, you've never mustered the energy to google what "SAP" stands for, or to check into whether what the FBI director said: about how anyone in a key role, like hers, handling classified information, would absolutely have known that they were looking at classified information (satellite imagery of facilities in North Korea? discussion threads about pending drone targets in the Middle East? code named human intelligence operations? - you get this, right?). She was required by law to secure any such information as soon as she saw it, and alert her agency's security personnel about that information's appearance on non-secure platforms or in non-secure places. She actively, knowingly avoided those obligations. And it only takes ONCE for her to be indicted and convicted as a felon merely for showing neglect - intent isn't even required.
And, if really sensitive information had ended up there, it would have been really bad.
Really sensitive information DID end up there, and we'll never know how much more of it may have, because once she found out she was under subpoena, she arranged to delete tens of thousands of messages in a way that prevented forensic recovery.
But it doesn't seem to be criminal; pretending it was just obscures the important points.
Mere neglect MAKES it criminal, by definition. Pretending the laws don't say that, and that other federal employees aren't in jail or towing around a felony record for single instances exactly that, is the "silly" you're looking for, here.
Yes, you did. You complained about how there are people in military prison for doing far less.
You, and only you, are choosing to interpret that comparison in a 100% backwards way. I think soldiers possessing illegal drugs should be subject to the UCMJ exactly as it's written, and exactly as they agreed to subject themselves to when they chose that line of work. Can you finally be clear on that?
What the conversation is ACTUALLY ABOUT is the "little" federal employees getting prosecuted for their negligent handling of classified information (again, as they agreed they would be), but Hillary Clinton being protected from that prosecution (though SHE ALSO agreed to be subject to it for doing exactly the sort of things she did). Are we clear on that now? Or are you going to try to change the subject again?
No, you're refusing to talk about how egregiously unjust the military's prosecution system is.
No, I'm refusing to take the bait you're trying to use to change the subject, as a way to distract from the fact she only avoided indictment because of political support from the administration. Regardless, not a SINGLE person in the US military is there but for having volunteered to be there. The UCMJ is publicly available to read before you decide to start taking a paycheck and benefits from the DoJ, and nobody - NOBODY - is even a little bit foggy on whether or not being in uniform and carrying around weed are compatible. Anyone in uniform who's too dumb to know that should be in the brig just for being that dumb.
And none of it would be done by the Military, as she was a civilian, and always has been.
Both military and civilian government employees who work with the clearances to handle classified material are subject to the same rules.
Any involvement of the military in Hillary Clinton's prosecution would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
Whew! It's a good thing you made that counterpoint to an argument nobody is having with you.
So let's stick to what you did bring up. The military's abuse of justice.
I brought up no such thing - you are deliberately manufacturing phony context so you can avoid talking about Clinton's slipperiness courtesy of Obama. I pointed out that people who are negligent with classified material go to jail. Unless they are Hillary Clinton, or any of the parade of her staff that have been given immunity deals by the Obama administration so they can cover for her.
Yes, the military still puts people in prison for marijuana possession.
Nice attempt at deflection. We're talking about people being put in prison because having a piece of equipment in the background of a selfie is considered such a grave example of negligence in the handling of sensitive material that it's worth locking someone up. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, deliberately conveys way-more-than-just-classified material to her uncleared staff and lawyers, storing it in private offices and homes... and her negligence (despite negligence being the statute's standard for conviction) is considered inconsequential by the only entity that could indict her for it - the Obama administration that is actively supporting her candidacy. Trying to compare this to controlled substance trafficking while on duty in the military is absurd.
Now check out that same line on her opponent's 2015 tax return....oh wait, you can't.
Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them, and like ANY lawyer would tell you or anyone else, he's keeping those NOT YET CONSIDERED FILED taxes on the table between him and the IRS until all of those thousands of pages of documents concerning his involvement in hundreds of business ventures are considered - BY THE IRS - to be complete and settled. All of which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can deflect on the topic of Clinton and entities like the NYT doing exactly the same maneuver to avoid paying taxes they are not obligated to pay.
Yes, I know. Thinking is hard. Regurgitating Breitbart is easier.
It's always fun to watch the deflection attempts, in place of a single coherent response on the subject matter.
People are in prison - more, newly this year - for doing far, far less than Clinton in simple neglect surrounding sensitive material. You know this. It's public record type stuff. You can't not know it, you can only pretend you don't know it. So the question is: why are you pretending to be dumb in order to support your lying, corrupt candidate? Why do you think that's a good thing? It's an odd position to take if you're trying to be persuasive.
The "email issue" continues to be a nothing to see. At worst they show a slight lack of misjudgements over technical issues.
Sure, other than the part where she deliberately chose to avoid federal record keeping laws, deleted federal records while under subpoena, and handled highly sensitive data (WAY more than merely "classified") with a recklessness that can and HAS put people in prison many times, even just this year. Lack of judgement? Her poor judgement was in her foolishly thinking she wouldn't get caught. But she did correctly judge that the same administration that has prosecuted other people for FAR less severe violations would protect her from the same consequences. Which is exactly what they've done, repeatedly.
The Clinton Foundation is a highly respected charity
Yes, highly respected by the people who give it money in order to buy influence with the Clintons. Highly respected by the family and friends of the Clintons who get fat paychecks, consulting contracts, and perks from the foundation as it spends well over 90% of the money it rakes in on paychecks for those favored employees and on things like travel perks and "administrative" expenses. Less than 6% of the huge pile of cash they take in from foreign dictators and civil rights abusers goes towards any sort of charity activity in any form. But since you're a fan of hers, and are clearly willing to overlook her serial lies and parade of corruption, I can see why you'd consider that arrangement to be "highly respectable." Sure, of course.
The DNC's behavior in the primaries was seriously bad, and I'm disgusted Clinton rewarded DWS with a job in her campaign, but frankly it's the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign.
Your attempt to draw a distinction between these two entities is so cute. Darling.
But thus far, what's been thrown at Clinton has been stupid, seen only as "damaging" if you hate Clinton so much you'd latch onto a spelling mistake as evidence she's unfit for government.
No. What she's thrown at herself is so damaging that if she didn't have the active protection of the Obama administration she would be, like other people who have done far, far less, already indicted and likely convicted of multiple federal felonies.
"HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?
Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*
It's not about his sleaziness, per se. It's about her full-throated support of it, even when he was violating sexual harassment laws and allegedly raping. Her willingness to use your tax dollars to pay her staff to go after the women her husband was abusing and to publicly smear their reputations... THAT is what's on the table here. Her remarkable hypocrisy, and the direct, repeated evidence that her entire pandering stance on "women's issues" is nothing but phony theater and another sign of her willingness to lie, over and over again on topics huge and trivial, in her quest for power and the circumstances to further enable her family to rake in millions while at the public trough. Her dismissal (and much worse) of multiple women's very consistent reporting of Bill's behavior and abuse is a key indicator of her sociopathy. THAT is why it impacts people's thoughts about voting for her.
There's really no need to consider that option. Because she's objectively guilty of things far more reckless and deliberate than acts which have put other people in jail. It's as simple as that. Government employees go to jail for doing far, far less than she has. The facts are plain, in front of you, confirmed by the FBI. But the only entity that can actually indict Clinton is... the Obama administration. Who support her campaign. Are you clear on this?
Actually, check out Hillary's 2015 tax return, page 17. She's using exactly the same carried loss maneuver to avoid paying taxes. Just like the New York Times does.
Fascinating! Please provide your citations. And also your explanation as to why the US, with all of it's intelligence agencies and cloak and dagger horsepower, hasn't killed him 20 times by now, if that's what they wanted. What is it - the hyper-powerful android security guards in the Ecuadorian embassy that are thwarting all of those assassination attempts? No? I see. I know... maybe you're just delusional. Yes, that makes more sense.
They're not. They're refusing to be taken in (again, and again and again) by the con team of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And they don't want her naming replacements to the Supreme Court, or making things like our immigration, over-regulation, and tax problems even worse.
Yeah, well, at least he's not a "doctor" in favor of homeopathy. He's not a scientist or even remotely educated in such areas. He can hire people for that. But the Greens are hilariously backing someone who is theoretically trained as a scientist, and who is clearly a loon. Although... I'll bet she can name a single head of state from another country, unlike the libertarian candidate.
The Trump support you see here is really Clinton loathing. Or, it's people who don't really care how nice the next president is, but they do care about the composition of the Supreme Court, and don't want the sort of nonsense that Clinton would push there. That's all that really matters, this time around. A court that gets at least a couple more justices who support the constitution's protections. Trump won't be perfect that way, but we've already seen the list of judges he'd choose from - and they are wildly preferable to anything Clinton would do. No, I'm not worried that Roe v Wade is in danger.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeedlydoo!
Yes, the sexual stuff is very illuminating about Bill Clinton's character, but I've seen no evidence that he did anything illegal.
Well, we have multiple credible women explaining that he abused and in some cases raped them. I know, they were smeared and intimidated by Hillary's PIs and operatives, but still won't shut up about it, but that's not evidence as you see it.
He presumably knows the law
And yet was found in contempt and was disbarred over his conduct.
Once again (though you're trying SO hard to wish it away), the issue here isn't Bill Clinton's lying in front of a judge during a suit and in related deposition, or his terrible judgement, or Lewinsky (I notice you're carefully avoiding the multiple women who say he very much DID use his power to harass and even raped). No, the issue here is Hillary Clinton's active engagement in sending out operatives (using your tax dollars!) to smear the reputations and wreck the lives and careers of the women her husband pursued and abused (and raped). SHE is the one running for president this time around (though she has promised Bill would play an active role in governing from the White House), so her abuses of power and her vindictive, women-abusing behavior are very much on the table. That's what makes it worth re-examining her support of Bill has he harassed and abused women. I know, you don't like all of that, because it suggests the truth about her rampant hypocrisy. Too bad.
Sexual harassment is illegal, actually. And the whole point was that Clinton was being sued for having done exactly that to a subordinate employee previously. Yes, he could have countered that it's not harassment (despite the outsized lopsidedness of the power equation) as long as she was "willing" - and she did seem to be willing. But multiple women subject to his employer/political power had previously pointed out his abuse and their unwillingness to be subject to it. The Lewinsky business lies on that spectrum, and his willingness to lie about it, and Hillary Clinton's eagerness to smear reputations and try to wreck the lives of women her predatory husband pursued ... that's illuminating, character-wise.
Hey, look! Somebody who can't address the substance of the matter and has to make themselves feel better by resorting to lazy ad hominem, as usual.
Something deliberate can still be a mistake.
Yes. For example, the Japanese definitely made "a mistake" attacking Pearl Harbor. But if you limit your description of that "mistake" as simply being "a mistake" and not just one piece of a much larger picture, then you're being a deliberate fool. Yes, one could use the word "mistake" in place of "ill conceived long-term strategic flaw fueled by hubris and toxic ethics," but the only reason you'd try to tamp it all down that way is because you support the person who embodies those flaws, and you LIKE those flaws if that's what gets you the political power you want.
Hillary has repeatedly admitted that using a personal email server was a mistake.
Which is, as you know, a completely BS thing to say. She didn't "make a mistake" (other than in the sense that she didn't understand the inevitability of being caught), she deliberately and purposefully set out to get around federal rules and laws regarding record keeping and the handling of sensitive information. That wasn't a mistake, it was completely deliberate. And her incessant lying about it ever since makes that very plain. You don't dole out immunity like candy to her staff over "a mistake."
Actually, a whole lot of people care. Especially the ones that would personally lose their careers and quite possibly their liberty if they did even a fraction of what the FBI says Clinton did. People care because it services as a grand example of Clinton's corruption and her career-long habit of looking you in the eye and lying to you over and over again. You don't care about her lying because you want her to be president. You LIKE that she lies. You're proud of it. You are happy to have her lying in order to get political power in the hands of someone that you think is allied with your world view. But saying that "nobody" cares? That's just wishful thinking on your part. Many millions of people actually DO care that she's a corrupt liar who's made a career out of enriching her family the public trough.
This is just a witch hunt... just like Benghazi and Whitewater and a bunch of other "scandals".
You mean just like Benghazi, where we see that she was indeed looking you in the eye and lying to you about what happened, all for political reasons right before an election? And where in the course of looking into what happened, it was found that she completely blew off all of the rules and laws surrounding federal record-keeping, and was handling classified data in her house and passing it around to uncleared staff and lawyers? That Benghazi?
And do you meant the Whitewater affair that uncovered all sorts of lawbreaking and classic Clintonian throwing-under-the-bus of other people, including Clinton loyalists, in order to avoid prosecution? That Whitewater?
I'm sick and tired of one bullshit story after the next.
No, you mean you're sick and tired of stories that remind you how your preferred candidate gets special treatment in order to avoid indictment. Some of the rest of us are sick and tired of those stories too, but for different reasons.
This.
So, which sensitive data, exactly? Did you actually read the reports? No question the private email server betrayed extremely poor judgment, but this is just silly.
So you're going to pretend that in all of this coverage, for a year and half and counting, you've never mustered the energy to google what "SAP" stands for, or to check into whether what the FBI director said: about how anyone in a key role, like hers, handling classified information, would absolutely have known that they were looking at classified information (satellite imagery of facilities in North Korea? discussion threads about pending drone targets in the Middle East? code named human intelligence operations? - you get this, right?). She was required by law to secure any such information as soon as she saw it, and alert her agency's security personnel about that information's appearance on non-secure platforms or in non-secure places. She actively, knowingly avoided those obligations. And it only takes ONCE for her to be indicted and convicted as a felon merely for showing neglect - intent isn't even required.
And, if really sensitive information had ended up there, it would have been really bad.
Really sensitive information DID end up there, and we'll never know how much more of it may have, because once she found out she was under subpoena, she arranged to delete tens of thousands of messages in a way that prevented forensic recovery.
But it doesn't seem to be criminal; pretending it was just obscures the important points.
Mere neglect MAKES it criminal, by definition. Pretending the laws don't say that, and that other federal employees aren't in jail or towing around a felony record for single instances exactly that, is the "silly" you're looking for, here.
Yes, you did. You complained about how there are people in military prison for doing far less.
You, and only you, are choosing to interpret that comparison in a 100% backwards way. I think soldiers possessing illegal drugs should be subject to the UCMJ exactly as it's written, and exactly as they agreed to subject themselves to when they chose that line of work. Can you finally be clear on that?
What the conversation is ACTUALLY ABOUT is the "little" federal employees getting prosecuted for their negligent handling of classified information (again, as they agreed they would be), but Hillary Clinton being protected from that prosecution (though SHE ALSO agreed to be subject to it for doing exactly the sort of things she did). Are we clear on that now? Or are you going to try to change the subject again?
No, you're refusing to talk about how egregiously unjust the military's prosecution system is.
No, I'm refusing to take the bait you're trying to use to change the subject, as a way to distract from the fact she only avoided indictment because of political support from the administration. Regardless, not a SINGLE person in the US military is there but for having volunteered to be there. The UCMJ is publicly available to read before you decide to start taking a paycheck and benefits from the DoJ, and nobody - NOBODY - is even a little bit foggy on whether or not being in uniform and carrying around weed are compatible. Anyone in uniform who's too dumb to know that should be in the brig just for being that dumb.
And none of it would be done by the Military, as she was a civilian, and always has been.
Both military and civilian government employees who work with the clearances to handle classified material are subject to the same rules.
Any involvement of the military in Hillary Clinton's prosecution would violate the Posse Comitatus Act.
Whew! It's a good thing you made that counterpoint to an argument nobody is having with you.
So let's stick to what you did bring up. The military's abuse of justice.
I brought up no such thing - you are deliberately manufacturing phony context so you can avoid talking about Clinton's slipperiness courtesy of Obama. I pointed out that people who are negligent with classified material go to jail. Unless they are Hillary Clinton, or any of the parade of her staff that have been given immunity deals by the Obama administration so they can cover for her.
Yes, I can see that you're a rational person, interested in substantive discussion.
So, who do you think should be seated on the Supreme Court? Please be specific.
Yes, the military still puts people in prison for marijuana possession.
Nice attempt at deflection. We're talking about people being put in prison because having a piece of equipment in the background of a selfie is considered such a grave example of negligence in the handling of sensitive material that it's worth locking someone up. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, deliberately conveys way-more-than-just-classified material to her uncleared staff and lawyers, storing it in private offices and homes ... and her negligence (despite negligence being the statute's standard for conviction) is considered inconsequential by the only entity that could indict her for it - the Obama administration that is actively supporting her candidacy. Trying to compare this to controlled substance trafficking while on duty in the military is absurd.
Now check out that same line on her opponent's 2015 tax return....oh wait, you can't.
Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them, and like ANY lawyer would tell you or anyone else, he's keeping those NOT YET CONSIDERED FILED taxes on the table between him and the IRS until all of those thousands of pages of documents concerning his involvement in hundreds of business ventures are considered - BY THE IRS - to be complete and settled. All of which you know, but you're pretending you don't so you can deflect on the topic of Clinton and entities like the NYT doing exactly the same maneuver to avoid paying taxes they are not obligated to pay.
There's really no need to consider that option.
Yes, I know. Thinking is hard. Regurgitating Breitbart is easier.
It's always fun to watch the deflection attempts, in place of a single coherent response on the subject matter.
People are in prison - more, newly this year - for doing far, far less than Clinton in simple neglect surrounding sensitive material. You know this. It's public record type stuff. You can't not know it, you can only pretend you don't know it. So the question is: why are you pretending to be dumb in order to support your lying, corrupt candidate? Why do you think that's a good thing? It's an odd position to take if you're trying to be persuasive.
The "email issue" continues to be a nothing to see. At worst they show a slight lack of misjudgements over technical issues.
Sure, other than the part where she deliberately chose to avoid federal record keeping laws, deleted federal records while under subpoena, and handled highly sensitive data (WAY more than merely "classified") with a recklessness that can and HAS put people in prison many times, even just this year. Lack of judgement? Her poor judgement was in her foolishly thinking she wouldn't get caught. But she did correctly judge that the same administration that has prosecuted other people for FAR less severe violations would protect her from the same consequences. Which is exactly what they've done, repeatedly.
The Clinton Foundation is a highly respected charity
Yes, highly respected by the people who give it money in order to buy influence with the Clintons. Highly respected by the family and friends of the Clintons who get fat paychecks, consulting contracts, and perks from the foundation as it spends well over 90% of the money it rakes in on paychecks for those favored employees and on things like travel perks and "administrative" expenses. Less than 6% of the huge pile of cash they take in from foreign dictators and civil rights abusers goes towards any sort of charity activity in any form. But since you're a fan of hers, and are clearly willing to overlook her serial lies and parade of corruption, I can see why you'd consider that arrangement to be "highly respectable." Sure, of course.
The DNC's behavior in the primaries was seriously bad, and I'm disgusted Clinton rewarded DWS with a job in her campaign, but frankly it's the DNC, not Clinton or her campaign.
Your attempt to draw a distinction between these two entities is so cute. Darling.
But thus far, what's been thrown at Clinton has been stupid, seen only as "damaging" if you hate Clinton so much you'd latch onto a spelling mistake as evidence she's unfit for government.
No. What she's thrown at herself is so damaging that if she didn't have the active protection of the Obama administration she would be, like other people who have done far, far less, already indicted and likely convicted of multiple federal felonies.
"HIllary's husband cheated on her, so I'm voting for Trump"?
Oh yes, THAT makes PERFECT sense. *eyeroll*
It's not about his sleaziness, per se. It's about her full-throated support of it, even when he was violating sexual harassment laws and allegedly raping. Her willingness to use your tax dollars to pay her staff to go after the women her husband was abusing and to publicly smear their reputations ... THAT is what's on the table here. Her remarkable hypocrisy, and the direct, repeated evidence that her entire pandering stance on "women's issues" is nothing but phony theater and another sign of her willingness to lie, over and over again on topics huge and trivial, in her quest for power and the circumstances to further enable her family to rake in millions while at the public trough. Her dismissal (and much worse) of multiple women's very consistent reporting of Bill's behavior and abuse is a key indicator of her sociopathy. THAT is why it impacts people's thoughts about voting for her.
There's really no need to consider that option. Because she's objectively guilty of things far more reckless and deliberate than acts which have put other people in jail. It's as simple as that. Government employees go to jail for doing far, far less than she has. The facts are plain, in front of you, confirmed by the FBI. But the only entity that can actually indict Clinton is ... the Obama administration. Who support her campaign. Are you clear on this?
Actually, check out Hillary's 2015 tax return, page 17. She's using exactly the same carried loss maneuver to avoid paying taxes. Just like the New York Times does.
Fascinating! Please provide your citations. And also your explanation as to why the US, with all of it's intelligence agencies and cloak and dagger horsepower, hasn't killed him 20 times by now, if that's what they wanted. What is it - the hyper-powerful android security guards in the Ecuadorian embassy that are thwarting all of those assassination attempts? No? I see. I know ... maybe you're just delusional. Yes, that makes more sense.
They're not. They're refusing to be taken in (again, and again and again) by the con team of Bill and Hillary Clinton. And they don't want her naming replacements to the Supreme Court, or making things like our immigration, over-regulation, and tax problems even worse.
Yeah, well, at least he's not a "doctor" in favor of homeopathy. He's not a scientist or even remotely educated in such areas. He can hire people for that. But the Greens are hilariously backing someone who is theoretically trained as a scientist, and who is clearly a loon. Although ... I'll bet she can name a single head of state from another country, unlike the libertarian candidate.
The Trump support you see here is really Clinton loathing. Or, it's people who don't really care how nice the next president is, but they do care about the composition of the Supreme Court, and don't want the sort of nonsense that Clinton would push there. That's all that really matters, this time around. A court that gets at least a couple more justices who support the constitution's protections. Trump won't be perfect that way, but we've already seen the list of judges he'd choose from - and they are wildly preferable to anything Clinton would do. No, I'm not worried that Roe v Wade is in danger.