[xenadu02]

I read a bunch of the emails and there wasn't anything significant in there unless you count cherry-picking quotes and willful misunderstanding. At best there are some ambiguous things that could be interpreted certain ways.

tl;dr: There is no smoking gun. People say things in private emails they wouldn't discuss in public, NEWS AT 11!!!!!

P.S. It wasn't "that pussy thing". It was Trump bragging that he pushes women into sexual encounters he knows they don't want and gets away with it because he's famous and rich. I like how the right pretended everyone was upset about some foul language though or that it was just "locker room" talk. If Trump had said "oh she's so hot, I'd love to fuck her" no one would have cared because that is locker room talk. What Trump said was in a different league.

[CptJamesCook]

You don't think that cheating in the debate by providing one candidate with questions in advance is significant?

[akhilcacharya]

Considering it was a pretty basic question that every Democratic primary candidate is asked about, not really.

It's like asking a Republican in a primary debate if they want to control guns.

[CptJamesCook]

If it was so basic, why did the head of the party email the campaign the exact question? She must have thought it was important, otherwise why put your career on the line

[crdoconnor]

Smoking guns:

* She admitted to having a "private" (real) policy position and a "public" one (lies).

* Bits of her speeches to Goldman came out and she basically said "we were way too hard on you guys" and "we need to listen more to you guys to help prevent another crisis".

* She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone.

Of course, apparently it's not the done thing these days to talk about policy scandals that actually affect us during a Presidential election.

[mcv]

How is the first one a smoking gun? She was quoting someone else. Lincoln, I think.

Her ties to Wallstreet are hardly a surprise. It sucks, but we already knew that she's probably not going to do what needs to be done to Wallstreet. But there's no reason to believe that Trump is going to do any better, and on almost everything else, Clinton is still a lot better, or at worst less bad.

[yongjik]

* She mentioned that she basically wanted a hemispheric free trade & freedom of movement zone.

...That sounds wonderful, if a bit too good to be true. Is it supposed to be bad?

[crdoconnor]

That depends. Are you a fan of NAFTA, CAFTA, the TPP and TTIP?

[mcv]

I think she's more alluding to something like the EU common market. NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP and TTIP don't do anything about freedom of movement, and do a lot about a ton of other things that have nothing to do with that.