What you say about WikiLeaks is true. However the documents published there can direct the attention of the legitimate inquiry. And AFAIK when asked directly, the DNC staffers confirmed that the documents weren't forged, and that's exactly what some media had done - checked and confirmed the facts directly (okay, some other media preferred to ignore any damaging information about "their gal" altogether). There also are the recently published candid videos shot at DNC and their subcontractors that fit together with the Wikileaks documents and go further. The strange part is that there is no general public outrage. Obama had so far about three Watergates worth of scandals, Clinton had at least two even before she was (not) elected. Yet their supporters are unwavering in their support. In the Nixon times, would everyone say "no, no, it's okay, he is our president and can do no wrong"? Obviously not. Why have things changed?
> There was nothing scandalous in it.
Um, leaving alone all their inter-personal relations with Sanders (whom Clinton apparently blackmailed but I'm not sure that anyone else should care unless Sanders files a complaint), how about breaking the campaign financing laws? Clinton is proclaiming that she is all against the special interests financing in the campaigns and yet what she practices is the opposite of what she preaches. Well, not exactly: she preaches against the _legal_ campaign contributions but obviously the illegal ones are fine with her as long as she does it and not the opponent.
> The hearings are done.
Nope, the hearings are not done. The AG hadn't even started an investigation yet. The case hadn't even been properly investigated, let alone brought into the court of law. It would have been shushed altogether if not for the work of a volunteer organization.
> your predictions about the so-called email "scandal" are equally biased.
Well, let's try to be objective.
(1) Were there people imprisoned for mishandling the classified material? The answer is yes. In fact, just recently there was a case when a guy went to prison for bringing his classified work home from work (he brought a lot of it, so his intentions could be argued either way). But he is not the only one. Do you agree that there are laws about this? Clinton willingly bypassed the security protocols and placed the massive amounts of classified information on the improperly secured computer systems. Do you agree about this? According to the FBI, at least 5 foreign entities had stolen this misplaced information. Do you see it as an issue?
(2) There are standards for the retainment of information. There is the Sarbanes-Oaxley act set by the government for this purpose that causes much headache to the executives and the IT departments. Do you think the government officials should be exempt from this requirement? These standards include an explicit prohibition for the use of the non-official e-mail account for the business communication, to hide the communication from the official record. Do you think the government officials should be exempt from this requirement? Do you think that Clinton didn't use this private server for the official communication, despite the published evidence to the contrary?
What would be your objective conclusion? Should she at least be properly investigated?
(reached the comment length limit, to be continued)
no subject
> There was nothing scandalous in it.
Um, leaving alone all their inter-personal relations with Sanders (whom Clinton apparently blackmailed but I'm not sure that anyone else should care unless Sanders files a complaint), how about breaking the campaign financing laws? Clinton is proclaiming that she is all against the special interests financing in the campaigns and yet what she practices is the opposite of what she preaches. Well, not exactly: she preaches against the _legal_ campaign contributions but obviously the illegal ones are fine with her as long as she does it and not the opponent.
> The hearings are done.
Nope, the hearings are not done. The AG hadn't even started an investigation yet. The case hadn't even been properly investigated, let alone brought into the court of law. It would have been shushed altogether if not for the work of a volunteer organization.
> your predictions about the so-called email "scandal" are equally biased.
Well, let's try to be objective.
(1) Were there people imprisoned for mishandling the classified material? The answer is yes. In fact, just recently there was a case when a guy went to prison for bringing his classified work home from work (he brought a lot of it, so his intentions could be argued either way). But he is not the only one. Do you agree that there are laws about this? Clinton willingly bypassed the security protocols and placed the massive amounts of classified information on the improperly secured computer systems. Do you agree about this? According to the FBI, at least 5 foreign entities had stolen this misplaced information. Do you see it as an issue?
(2) There are standards for the retainment of information. There is the Sarbanes-Oaxley act set by the government for this purpose that causes much headache to the executives and the IT departments. Do you think the government officials should be exempt from this requirement? These standards include an explicit prohibition for the use of the non-official e-mail account for the business communication, to hide the communication from the official record. Do you think the government officials should be exempt from this requirement? Do you think that Clinton didn't use this private server for the official communication, despite the published evidence to the contrary?
What would be your objective conclusion? Should she at least be properly investigated?
(reached the comment length limit, to be continued)