Clinton reveal more state secrets?

[Dill]

(10-24-2016, 09:08 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Absolutely. No one is 100% good or 100% bad. Look, where there's smoke, there's fire. There are too many things going on to deny there is a preponderance of evidence that something is amiss with the Clintons. A preponderance is not a high enough standard, though, for a finding of guilty in a court. And I don't even know if anything legitimately illegal took place. I do see plenty of ethically questionable behavior, though, and that concerns me.

I hear what you are saying. But what bothers me in this case is that a lot of the "smoke" is generated by rich Republican donors paying people to create it, along with the the usual suspects at Fox News. Benghazi is a prime example, but I could tick off a list going back to the "murder" of Vince Foster and Whitewater (8 years taxpayer money was wasted on that one).  Clinton's husband does appear to be a womanizer, though like her also a very competent politician.  

Most of what currently raises suspicions about Clinton should be classified as innuendo. A secret service agent claims she was terrible to work under and maybe threw a lamp at Bill, though no one actually saw that. The King of Morocco offered to donate 12 million to the Clinton Foundation--though nothing ever came of that, etc. This is in contrast to Trump scandals, which rest largely upon what he himself says before an audience of millions.

The Clinton's, since his presidency, have seemed bent on doing good, public work in one way or another, as opposed to the self-aggrandizing, Xenophobic, Trump, whose chaotic business history is matter of public/court record.  It is not Fox News but angry, stiffed contractors/customers who are his accusers.