[chinese_donald]

"The only thing you can say for certain is that people acting intelligently and honestly would never vote such a man into the Presidency. That he's President-elect is a devastating testament to a deep pathology in American politics and culture."

I feel the same way about Hillary: She defended a rapist husband, used the government as her personal piggy bank, used the mainstream media as her attack dog, and conspired against all of her enemies, and tried to steal the white house.

We also have PC culture run amok. Trump is a big 'Fuck You' many intelligent Americans have been waiting for, for many years. It has nothing to do with racism, sexism, or xenophobia.

The saddest thing? The fact that Wikileaks had to bring many of this to light. Julian Assange still hasn't been heard from since his power was cut at the embassy.

[refulgentis]

A vast majority of these claims are extraordinary and have no sourcing. Source on using government as her personal piggy bank?

[blusterXY]

The Clinton Foundation is known to have directly misappropriated government donations. Donors to the organization also seem to have received preferential treatment from the State Department:

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/wikileaks-chel...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/114379...

Other major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti. If you need direct evidence of Hillary's involvement, focus on the 33k emails she deleted AFTER receiving a Congressional subpoena, emails that were originally sent from a private server expressly to avoid public disclosure FOIA requirements.

[refulgentis]

I had to find the emails the first article references by myself because they didn't link to them. I was drawn to because the pull quotes sounded out of context, and they are. The emails referenced dont say nearly what the article claims, it's extremely unclear how they came to their conclusion.

The second article you cite expressly avoids saying any preferential treatment was received, and notes the donation was unsolicited.

What major conflicts of interest involved Russia and Haiti? Both of those are a contradiction in terms - at what point would Clinton have multiple interests in them?

The 33k emails are gone, so I can't read them. You note they show her direct involvement. Direct involvement in what? How do you have access to the emails? Have you considered leaking them?

[blusterXY]

This is hilarious. Bill Clinton's right-hand man accuses Chelsea of misappropriating Clinton Foundation resources to pressure her into stopping her investigation into the way he handled Foundation finances and you think his accusation is "out of context" and "extremely unclear". It is precisely the context of the emails that make it so clear.

> The second article ... notes the donation was unsolicited.

And you apparently can't distinguish between a journalist reporting a fact ("Clinton Foundation admits breaking ethical rules") and the same journalist attributing a claim to a third party (yes, the "claim" that the donation was unsolicited comes directly from the Clinton Foundation).

You can Google Uranium One for Russia and earthquake recovery contracts for Haiti if you really want to dig into the patterns of criminal behavior, but I wouldn't worry about it. The FBI is confirmed to have multiple ongoing investigations into the Clinton Foundation. And we know for a fact that Clinton intentionally deleted work-related emails after getting subpoenaed by Congress, which is two felonies right there (obstruction of an investigation, and destruction of evidence). So throw out the claims that these are "extraordinary claims" with "no sourcing"... it's highly suggestive evidence of corruption with documented attempts to obstruct investigative work that continues to justify extensive Federal investigations.

If I find the emails Hillary put through the shredder I will let you know. Fortunately, there is enough to put her in jail based on the materials that have already been leaked.

[refulgentis]

You're iterating your talking points without explaining the previous state of them, so it's very tiring, so I have no interest in participating. None of my questions have been answered :( Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions because you feel it betrays sympathy for people who disagree with you, and it's bundled with even more extraordinary claims.

Before reading the following, please consider that I genuinely wish you well and think you're making an honest effort at staying out of ideological swamps. There's no need to feel that I'm judging you or your choice of sourcing, I'm only curious about this subject and genuinely want to learn more, so I'm trying to find more source material.

When no charges are bought after 4 years under a president and attorney general who have been thirsting to try her for anything, I hope you reconsider the fever swamp of information we've been discussing. These...news...sites contradict their own sources, and from the research I've done and the form of your answers, it seems impossible to find justification for their extraordinary claims.

[blusterXY]

> Your post reads as picking at my the wording of my questions

Nope, my complaint is that you write-off Hillary's destruction of federal records, multiple active criminal investigations, and suspicious evidence of pay-to-play (in direct violation of her ethics agreement) as nothing warranting suspicion. And then accuse anyone who points out these flagrant breaches of public trust of being mired in a "fever swamp" and making "extraordinary claims" instead of factual observations.

It is certainly possible that Clinton is guilty of no further crimes than those which have already been revealed, although I wouldn't be money on it. With that said, I'm glad to hear you support the appointment of a special prosecutor to look into HRC and the Clinton Foundation, and view it as an exonerating step that will redeem Hillary's questionable political legacy.

[Chris2048]

"and have no sourcing"

Where do authoritative sources come from? Government? Mainstream media?

I think "personal piggy bank" might refer to Clinton foundation donations and collusions, but don't expect it to be too easy to find that information, no time will be spend producing fancy interactive info-graphics to make that easier to understand...