Wikileaks......still no proof of corruption.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-21-2016, 01:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: First of all none of the primaries were "rigged".  

I agree that the DNC wanted Hillary to be elected, but that is on them, not Hillary. The DNC is a private organization and can do whatever they want. I disagree with some of the actions they took, but that is nothing like Hillary selling influence as an elected official.
 

What do you mean "seem" to support?


my point is that I hear so many people claiming that we can not elect Hillary because she will be corrupt and sell her influence in exchange for financial gain, yet despite the fact that Wikilinks has 33,000 emails they can't provide any proof that she ever did anything like this as either a senator or Sec of State.

I'll give you that the rigged primaries were the fault of the DNC, though to think Hillary had no clue what was going on is foolishness.

Secondly, "seem to support" I mean, "seems to support". It's basic English, fred.

Lastly, there is no direct evidence, no. BUT, there is the fact that people who were originally denied an audience with Her Majesty Hillary Clinton were soon given an audience AFTER they had made a sizeable donation. Now, does that mean corruption? Of course not, but it does seem to suggest there's something there. And since Hillary already has shown a penchant for destroying evidence, maybe she got lucky and was successful in destroying the most obvious and damning evidence. 

BTW, would you categorize the destruction of subpoenaed evidence AFTER being subpoenaed as an example of corruption?