Clinton reveal more state secrets?

[Belsnickel]

(10-24-2016, 10:19 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.

You're preaching to the choir here. Even though I am not a Clinton supporter, I believe she would be less damaging to our country and is not as crooked as Trump. But, this is something that I think a lot of people defending either one of those two tend to forget, is that in the world of politics, in the world of public opinion and foreign affairs, the image is everything. The perception is reality. If someone appears to be not trustworthy because of those innuendos, then that perception is there.

When we are working on diplomatic relations with country x who is not on good terms with country y, yet there is an innuendo out there of favorable treatment to country y by the Diplomat in Chief (one of the roles of POTUS), then it can cause problems.

As for the stuff about Clinton from SS agents, I've heard some of the stories from primary sources, people that were there. Someone in particular that was the target of a tirade or two from her. And these are stories I was privy to over a decade ago. I have to admit, I do not like Clinton on a personal level because I am one of those that sees the way you treat those there to serve you as a reflection of your true character, but I separate my opinions of her as a person from those I have of her as a politician. She is an effective civil servant, she is good at the game. But I don't think her motives are all that great. She has done all of these things, IMO, with the end goal of becoming POTUS, not for philanthropic ideals. She said to someone close to her when Bill was elected that her goal was 8 years of Bill, and 8 years of Hill, that's been her goal all along and that is what she has been trying to shape the whole time.