I think part of the problem is that people assume that because she’s faced so many accusations she must have done something. But all her opponents have on her is a mountain of bullshit. They happily go digging into it, assuming there’s a gold nugget in there somewhere. But they never find the gold and they come out looking and smelling as you’d expect.
More like “it doesn’t count because it was a mistake, it wasn’t against the law, it was not motivated by malice, and did not cause any harm.”
To expand, with Trump it’s more like:
At the end of the night, Trump is nowhere in sight, he’s been buying rounds for the house all night, he opened the tab in your name, the white guys at the end of the bar are drunk and fighting, and your wallet is gone. Before he left, he pinched your ass (or your wife’s) and called you stoopid. Go Murika!
“She hasn’t been convicted of a felony or any other crimes” absolutely is the correct, reality-based, response when some conservative comes running up with his hair on fire, yelling, “Hillary is a felon!”
I don’t think there’s a lot of apathy; I just think there aren’t a lot of Democrats on the national level to choose from. A hitherto relative unknown Socialist gave her a scare this time (there are still a lot of Sanders’ supporters who don’t like her). Last time a largely unknown black senator beat her to the nomination.
I think that because she’s running up against Trump that a lot of people are willing to forgive Hillary’s negatives. If the Republicans had nominated someone more qualified than Oscar The Grouch to be president there might have been more hand-wringing on the Democrat side.
Mrs. Clinton is corrupt? WOW!
Exactly how is she corrupt?
I’d be happy to do my own research and analysis on such a topic. However, I haven’t been following this particular controversy.
Your statement seems to imply specific statistical inference about the relationship between donations and weapons deals. But without actual numbers (correlation coefficients and p values at an absolute minimum) “statistically significant levels” is not a statement I can take on faith.
Is there a publicly available list of (1) US weapons deals given to foreign governments, and (2) donations to the Clinton Foundation from foreign governments?
My baseline answer now;
“Twenty five years of continuous ‘investigations’ and hearings that produced exactly ZERO charges against her. No one should have to endure that kind of life-long malicious prosecution. Time for it to stop.”
What are these negatives?
Because thats the point, your post and many others like it seem to be based on the assumption that there are serious mistakes in Clintons past or that there are serious reasons why she shouldn’t be president, yet when I try to find out what those negatives are all I find is this weak shit about emails and Benghasi.
There’s also a number of other shit Karl Rove and the GOP made up.
Yep, there’s nothing but the emails. The emails do show a error in judgment. If Hillary had been a Civil servant, she would have been reprimanded and made to retake training. It’s a solid “oops” but no crime.
She has been under constant GOP attacks and media scrutiny for over twenty years. If this is the worst- meh.
Many U.S. Presidents were significantly ruthless and/or corrupt. JFK, LBJ, and Richard Nixon formed a trifecta of three consecutive ethically-challenged Presidents; and the much idolized Reagan appointed the criminals who orchestrated the Iran-Contra crimes. In more adult times, Americans understood that ruthlessness and bending the law were almost prerequisites for strong leadership!
Hillary Clinton is a very admirable woman. Is she guilty of ethical lapses? Quite possibly; certainly the e-mail fiasco raises questions. But the snide right-wingers have been lying about the Clintons so long (the story of the boy who cried “Wolf!” comes to mind) that it is best to ignore all charges against her!
And every sensible soul understands that she is by far the better of the two candidates America is now presented with. Most of us would prefer her, warts and all, over any of the 17 clowns that presented themselves on the GOP debate stage.
America uses the suffix -gate to denote an alleged political scandal. The litany of complaints against Hillary includes Whitewatergate, Fostergate, Monicagate, Benghazigate, Foundationgate and Emailgate. Most of these are too absurd to bother with. I summarize the Clinton “scandals” sarcastically as “Gategate and Gategate-gate.”
You forgot “GatorGate-gate”, when she made some passing snide remark about the University of Florida back in 1997.
(Not True. But I would support her even more if she had done that. 
)
I remember it was like this when Obama was running as well. No, it can’t possibly be that our ticket is lame and everybody hates our policies… the opposition must be BLIND! The election must be RIGGED!
“People are talking about it”.
That’s about the extent of the talking points now. Rather pathetic really.
Setting up a home-brew server so she can avoid the intent of the FOIA counts as malice.
Well, she was a member of the Young Republicans.
What is Trump going to do?
Funny how Clothahump hasn’t been back to explain about those felonies. You don’t suppose Hillary got to him, do you?
You’ll vote for her, and you will like it.
Otherwise, you’re just wasting your vote, and without it Trump will win. There are no other choices.
A Clinton presidency is the best of all possible worlds. And besides, I hear the Democrats will have some really cool new planks in their platform in 2020.
And the entire ‘marital infidelities’ is a seriously fucked up accusation when the Republican candidate cheated on each of his wives with the next wife, and probably (if you believe his own words) a lot more women than just that.
Besides the fact that it is about Bill, and not Hillary.