The big problem is not Trump. It is "Trumpism"

[Dill]

(05-01-2019, 12:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you want to set the guilt standard as Found guilty by an investigation. I think we can consider both "clean" but otherwise:

Her reported actions toward women accusing her husband of sexual harassment/rape.
Taking "sniper fire" in Bosnia
Her processing classified government documents from a personal server the saying she didn't know she couldn't
Having 3,000ish emails deleted from her personal computer after it had been supeanoed
Whitewater
Travelgate
Telling the public Benghazi was impulsive act while emailing her daughter and telling her it was a planned Al Quida plot
The Clinton foundation

These are but a few. The point is that you are a hypocrite if you say you "prize ethical conduct" and that's the reason you voted for Hills.

There may be other reasons one selected Hills over Trump but GTFO if you try to claim it was because of each's ethical conduct

LOL you forgot Vince Foster.  

No one voted for Hillary simply because she appeared more ethical--though she certainly did. 

And this is a troubling list of supposed equivalences, tossed out as if self-evidently so.

You'd compare what Hillary is "reported" to have said about women who had affairs with her husband to what trump publicly says about women--like porn stars paid to keep silent?

Posit the sniper fire exaggeration against lies to incite hatred and division-- thousands of Muslims cheering from rooftops on 9/11, 3-5 million illegal voters? A mother and doctor deciding whether to kill a live baby?   Sniper fire against the 10,000 tallied lies of Trump?

Every item on your list shows the damage done to civic standards--and the capacity to apply them--first by right wing media over the decades before Trump's election, then by those who defend him afterwards.

Take the Clinton Foundation, which actually and provided HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS in direct relief of disasters and medicine for diseases. Ethical questions were raised when people looking for favors began to contribute money to the foundation while seeking access to the Clintons.  No evidence of actual influence was ever found.  And the money still went to help people.  Four star rating from the Charity Navigator.  I grant the appearance of impropriety, but this is a long ways from Trump's history of grift. Even if you throw in "scandals" for which Hillary was never charged, like Whitewater and travelgate, the former of which, by the way, involved the Clintons' PUBLIC tax returns.

Compare this to the Trump foundation, dissolved under imminent legal action. A WaPo reporter got a Pulitzer Prize for tracking the non-disbursement of donations from that organization, among myriad other ethical improprieties.  At the time he won, 6 million supposedly donated to veterans still had not been disbursed, though 4 million was later paid out, as the WaPo began publishing its responses from intended recipients who were still waiting.  The NY attorney general filed a lawsuit against Trump in 2018, claiming he used the foundation to settle business disputes and campaign expenses. https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2018-06-14/new-york-attorney-general-sues-trump-foundation. Nothing more than a shell game.  To this one could add the infamous Trump university, which settled two class actions lawsuits out of court for 25 million. Still waiting to see Trump's tax forms.  
Benghazi.  Jeezus.  There is no email in which Hillary tells Chelsea about a "planned" attack.  The one perp who was captured says the attack WAS spontaneous and based on the video The Innocence of Muslims (obviously he had not been watching Fox!). Yet people-who-never-watch-Fox still have this infamous "contradiction" ready to hand. From a false either/or between "spontaneous" attack and Al Qaeda affilliate participation arises "proof" that Hillary "lied to the American people."  Better yet, proof that Fox knows how to play its audience, who trust their selected experts rather than themselves to reconstruct the timeline reading primary documents.  

Then we turn to emails which Hillary had a legal right to delete BEFORE the subpoena deleted afterwards by a slacker. 

None of this amounts to four bankruptcies, a scam charity, admitted sexual assault, and birtherism, and then election shenanigans like mocking a disabled reporter and insulting women's looks (especially the 19 accusing him of assault/harassment) and referencing Mexican immigrants as "rapists" (though "some" might not be); and the embrace of help from a foreign adversary.  Hillary might look ethically challenged compared to Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but not compared to Trump.  

So yes. People who voted for Hillary were largely voting for competence over incompetence. And whatever ethical flaws she had, they paled in comparison to Trump's. They knew she would not embarrass the nation as Trump has done.  That is why the Russians want HIM to win, not her.