Hillary won more votes for President

Bentleyspop

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Obama: Hilliary will say anything and change nothing.

Hilliary:
We came out of the white house dead broke and in debt
I remember landing under sniper fire
I have never lied to the American public
I never received or sent any material that was marked classified from private server
I worked across the partisan aisle with DeLay, one of the most partisan republicans in congress, on ASFA.

I forgot this one, probably my favorite!

The Islamic State is rooting for Trumps victory, "please allah, make Trump president of America"

You forgot that HRC is responsible for JFK Jr's death.

WHAT??!!
I thought you were a smart guy
Don't you know that Obama is responsible for that?
And everything else bad that has ever happened at any time in human history.
D'uh

mrussel1

Bentleyspop said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

JC29856 said:

Obama: Hilliary will say anything and change nothing.

Hilliary:
We came out of the white house dead broke and in debt
I remember landing under sniper fire
I have never lied to the American public
I never received or sent any material that was marked classified from private server
I worked across the partisan aisle with DeLay, one of the most partisan republicans in congress, on ASFA.

I forgot this one, probably my favorite!

The Islamic State is rooting for Trumps victory, "please allah, make Trump president of America"

You forgot that HRC is responsible for JFK Jr's death.

WHAT??!!
I thought you were a smart guy
Don't you know that Obama is responsible for that?
And everything else bad that has ever happened at any time in human history.
D'uh

There's a person on the AMT who actually posted that in the past. They know who they are...

Boxes&Books

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/facebook-cofounder-gift-democrats/index.html

Just making sure all you liberals who hate corporations and the money they inject to elections have another example to get mad about. Oh wait, you won't care because the ends justify the means in ALL cases for liberals.

that's one big paint brush you got there. how do you hold it up?

Truth is not a heavy burden.

Mozilla CEO donates 1,000 to a political action committee and he loses his job because of the left's whining and moaning. This guy gives $20 million and perfectly fine apparently. You can only lose your job when your views don't align with the left's. How many times did I read here about the evil Coke brothers and how the rich shouldn't be able to influence politicians, but if Salesforce wants to take on laws in Indiana or Paypal wants to pressure the state of North Carolina that is perfectly fine. Selective outrage.

I don't like that some punk who designed a piece of software has more say in politics than me or anyone else.

sweeping generalization are, however.

I have always said that elections, as they stand now, are a farce. the person with the most money wins, and that money comes from rich donors who get their whims back in spades. it is legal corruption, and I think it stinks. private donations should be illegal.

I have never seen liberals apologize for this behaviour.

Didn't Obama setup some new rule for the DNC, where they couldn't take in big money, kind of like banning citizens united but only for the DNC?-

Didn't DWS overturn it? Wasn't HRC against Citizens United? I never heard the press conference where she spoke out against overturnning that rule. Can someone link me up to it? Didn't she say she would do everything possible to overturn Citizens U? But is bringing in truck loads of FUCKING CASH FROM BIG DONORS!?!?! I'm fucking confused.
Someone link up her website where I could go see where she stands on these issues. Some clintonite posted it yesterday suggesting I read through so I could get answers. WTF - KNowing Clinton, I'll read through and the next day she'll be flip flopping ... fuck that. A total waste of time.
I remember Obama getting it right when he said something to the affect of, "Clinton will say anything and change nothing" .....

mrussel1

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/facebook-cofounder-gift-democrats/index.html

Just making sure all you liberals who hate corporations and the money they inject to elections have another example to get mad about. Oh wait, you won't care because the ends justify the means in ALL cases for liberals.

that's one big paint brush you got there. how do you hold it up?

Truth is not a heavy burden.

Mozilla CEO donates 1,000 to a political action committee and he loses his job because of the left's whining and moaning. This guy gives $20 million and perfectly fine apparently. You can only lose your job when your views don't align with the left's. How many times did I read here about the evil Coke brothers and how the rich shouldn't be able to influence politicians, but if Salesforce wants to take on laws in Indiana or Paypal wants to pressure the state of North Carolina that is perfectly fine. Selective outrage.

I don't like that some punk who designed a piece of software has more say in politics than me or anyone else.

sweeping generalization are, however.

I have always said that elections, as they stand now, are a farce. the person with the most money wins, and that money comes from rich donors who get their whims back in spades. it is legal corruption, and I think it stinks. private donations should be illegal.

I have never seen liberals apologize for this behaviour.

Didn't Obama setup some new rule for the DNC, where they couldn't take in big money, kind of like banning citizens united but only for the DNC?-

Didn't DWS overturn it? Wasn't HRC against Citizens United? I never heard the press conference where she spoke out against overturnning that rule. Can someone link me up to it? Didn't she say she would do everything possible to overturn Citizens U? But is bringing in truck loads of FUCKING CASH FROM BIG DONORS!?!?! I'm fucking confused.
Someone link up her website where I could go see where she stands on these issues. Some clintonite posted it yesterday suggesting I read through so I could get answers. WTF - KNowing Clinton, I'll read through and the next day she'll be flip flopping ... fuck that. A total waste of time.
I remember Obama getting it right when he said something to the affect of, "Clinton will say anything and change nothing" .....

Why do you want someone to send you a link to it if it's a waste of time?

Obama probably did say that in the primaries in 08. But he endorsed her passionately and made her SOS. You should be very angry with Obama for that rather than quoting him.

Gern Blansten

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-email-story-is-out-of-control/2016/09/08/692947d0-75fc-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.ba8830ba9723

...In fact, Ms. Clinton’s emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently. Ironically, even as the email issue consumed so much precious airtime, several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story. First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.

Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials. Mr. Powell attempted last month to distance himself from Ms. Clinton’s practices, which is one of the many factors that made the email story look worse. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell engaged in similar behavior.

Last is a finding that 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during the FBI email investigation and recently attracted big headlines had nothing significant in them. Only one, in fact, was previously undisclosed, and it contained nothing but a compliment from a diplomat. But the damage of the “30 deleted Benghazi emails” story has already been done.

Ms. Clinton is hardly blameless. She treated the public’s interest in sound record-keeping cavalierly. A small amount of classified material also moved across her private server. But it was not obviously marked as such, and there is still no evidence that national security was harmed. Ms. Clinton has also admitted that using the personal server was a mistake. The story has vastly exceeded the boundaries of the facts.

Imagine how history would judge today’s Americans if, looking back at this election, the record showed that voters empowered a dangerous man because of . . . a minor email scandal. There is no equivalence between Ms. Clinton’s wrongs and Mr. Trump’s manifest unfitness for office.

Fucking finally!

PJ_Soul

.

Boxes&Books

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-email-story-is-out-of-control/2016/09/08/692947d0-75fc-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.ba8830ba9723

...In fact, Ms. Clinton’s emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently. Ironically, even as the email issue consumed so much precious airtime, several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story. First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.

Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials. Mr. Powell attempted last month to distance himself from Ms. Clinton’s practices, which is one of the many factors that made the email story look worse. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell engaged in similar behavior.

Last is a finding that 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during the FBI email investigation and recently attracted big headlines had nothing significant in them. Only one, in fact, was previously undisclosed, and it contained nothing but a compliment from a diplomat. But the damage of the “30 deleted Benghazi emails” story has already been done.

Ms. Clinton is hardly blameless. She treated the public’s interest in sound record-keeping cavalierly. A small amount of classified material also moved across her private server. But it was not obviously marked as such, and there is still no evidence that national security was harmed. Ms. Clinton has also admitted that using the personal server was a mistake. The story has vastly exceeded the boundaries of the facts.

Imagine how history would judge today’s Americans if, looking back at this election, the record showed that voters empowered a dangerous man because of . . . a minor email scandal. There is no equivalence between Ms. Clinton’s wrongs and Mr. Trump’s manifest unfitness for office.

Fucking finally!

OH MY GOD!!! YES!!! FINALLY!!! THANK YOU, JESUS!!

We can all finally get some rest tonight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yev6Hi4LDFY

PJ_Soul

bootlegger10 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/facebook-cofounder-gift-democrats/index.html

Just making sure all you liberals who hate corporations and the money they inject to elections have another example to get mad about. Oh wait, you won't care because the ends justify the means in ALL cases for liberals.

I don't hate corporations either, in and of themselves. I often like to buy the shit they produce. What they happen to do on a case by case basis determines how I feel about any given corporation (I do hate American health insurance companies though... vultures. Every last one. They shouldn't be allowed to exist IMO). I do definitely hate the government for allowing corporations to manipulate governance, regulations, and laws though. For allowing corporations to buy off politicians. I think that only private citizens should be able to donate to election campaigns. Of course that would include rich people who may get all of their own money from said corporations - there is no way around that IMO. And that is what it seems Dustin Moskovitz is doing. He donated his own private money, not the company's money. How would you, bootlegger10, suggest we could get around that? You can't tell private citizens what to do with their own money if they want to donate it, be they rich or poor.

mrussel1

^^I've brought this up to you before. Wasn't this a goal of Bernie? Didn't he want to influence the platform? Didn't he say the revolution was about ideas not him? Yet, when she listens to the people and changes her position, you lambaste her for flip flopping (Remembering this is official Obama policy, rightfully). When she does a press conference, you poo poo it. When she interviews with a 60 minutes or Morning Joe, you dismiss it. When she apologizes for the emails, the same. When people here ask you, what questions does she need to answer, there is no reply (that I've seen). At least be intellectually honest that there's nothing she can do that won't drive you to criticism.

rssesq

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN8nt4N3hvo

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

^^I've brought this up to you before. Wasn't this a goal of Bernie? Didn't he want to influence the platform? Didn't he say the revolution was about ideas not him? Yet, when she listens to the people and changes her position, you lambaste her for flip flopping (Remembering this is official Obama policy, rightfully). When she does a press conference, you poo poo it. When she interviews with a 60 minutes or Morning Joe, you dismiss it. When she apologizes for the emails, the same. When people here ask you, what questions does she need to answer, there is no reply (that I've seen). At least be intellectually honest that there's nothing she can do that won't drive you to criticism.

Your post is pointing at my post m... are you talking to me??

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

^^I've brought this up to you before. Wasn't this a goal of Bernie? Didn't he want to influence the platform? Didn't he say the revolution was about ideas not him? Yet, when she listens to the people and changes her position, you lambaste her for flip flopping (Remembering this is official Obama policy, rightfully). When she does a press conference, you poo poo it. When she interviews with a 60 minutes or Morning Joe, you dismiss it. When she apologizes for the emails, the same. When people here ask you, what questions does she need to answer, there is no reply (that I've seen). At least be intellectually honest that there's nothing she can do that won't drive you to criticism.

Your post is pointing at my post m... are you talking to me??

No, sorry. When I typed it, yours wasn't there but I was trying to eliminate the video.

It was meant for Tonifig8, but I don't expect a reply. It's an endless circly.

Halifax2TheMax

tonifig8 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

bootlegger10 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/facebook-cofounder-gift-democrats/index.html

Just making sure all you liberals who hate corporations and the money they inject to elections have another example to get mad about. Oh wait, you won't care because the ends justify the means in ALL cases for liberals.

that's one big paint brush you got there. how do you hold it up?

Truth is not a heavy burden.

Mozilla CEO donates 1,000 to a political action committee and he loses his job because of the left's whining and moaning. This guy gives $20 million and perfectly fine apparently. You can only lose your job when your views don't align with the left's. How many times did I read here about the evil Coke brothers and how the rich shouldn't be able to influence politicians, but if Salesforce wants to take on laws in Indiana or Paypal wants to pressure the state of North Carolina that is perfectly fine. Selective outrage.

I don't like that some punk who designed a piece of software has more say in politics than me or anyone else.

sweeping generalization are, however.

I have always said that elections, as they stand now, are a farce. the person with the most money wins, and that money comes from rich donors who get their whims back in spades. it is legal corruption, and I think it stinks. private donations should be illegal.

I have never seen liberals apologize for this behaviour.

Didn't Obama setup some new rule for the DNC, where they couldn't take in big money, kind of like banning citizens united but only for the DNC?-

Didn't DWS overturn it? Wasn't HRC against Citizens United? I never heard the press conference where she spoke out against overturnning that rule. Can someone link me up to it? Didn't she say she would do everything possible to overturn Citizens U? But is bringing in truck loads of FUCKING CASH FROM BIG DONORS!?!?! I'm fucking confused.
Someone link up her website where I could go see where she stands on these issues. Some clintonite posted it yesterday suggesting I read through so I could get answers. WTF - KNowing Clinton, I'll read through and the next day she'll be flip flopping ... fuck that. A total waste of time.
I remember Obama getting it right when he said something to the affect of, "Clinton will say anything and change nothing" .....

For the dour, sour grape Bernie supporter losers who might frequent this thread, incase you wanted to know where Hillary stands but were afraid to ask:

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

I'm Bernie Sanders and I'm supporting Hillary Clinton. That must sting.

Halifax2TheMax

https://www.google.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+campaign+finance&stick=H4sIAAAAAAAAAOPge8SYzC3w8sc9YamoSWtOXmMM4dLKTrbST88vSy3Ky03NK9EvyM_JLMlMzkzMs0pOzC1IzEzPU0jLzEvMS04VUuNic80rySypFJLh4pXi1M_VN0gxMMs11WCQ4uZCcHkAIwt9UmgAAAA&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLttjblYPPAhVCOT4KHfaICAMQi5MBCKgBKAYwHw&biw=320&bih=529

Where the truckloads of cash come from, incase you were afraid to ask.

Boxes&Books

mrussel1 said:

^^I've brought this up to you before. Wasn't this a goal of Bernie? Didn't he want to influence the platform? Didn't he say the revolution was about ideas not him? Yet, when she listens to the people and changes her position, you lambaste her for flip flopping (Remembering this is official Obama policy, rightfully). When she does a press conference, you poo poo it. When she interviews with a 60 minutes or Morning Joe, you dismiss it. When she apologizes for the emails, the same. When people here ask you, what questions does she need to answer, there is no reply (that I've seen). At least be intellectually honest that there's nothing she can do that won't drive you to criticism.

Oh you were asking me a question? So is she for TPP or not? Or is it more word play from her? Seemed like she had a hard on for it, just like you, but then when it was literally making her look bad she flipped and said she was against it. However she then said certain things were good and others weren't. You tell me, since you seem to be her spokes person and have excuse for every single situation. It's becoming apparent that it's simply impossible for her to be wrong.

Her interview on 60mins, her interview on Morning Joe, and her interview on Fox were all different and they were all glossing over questions. Heck the 60min interview had Tim K in it and was more of an introduction to Tim. Not to mention they were all very short interviews(60min interview was cut as well). Her last interview with Matt L(town hall). was probably 30mins long? She was asked tough questions by the service men/women - most of which were about her character and her untrustworthiness- maybe we'd be past all this shit if she'd only interview more often. Most of those shows/interviews had to move along quickly and most had several questions to cover, but only had 10mins or so to work with. I'm sure there are guidelines with those interviews as well.
I'm not sure what the big deal is with her doing press conferences? I;m not sure how that's some how a conspiracy or an attack on her. Makes zero sense why you need to continue to defend her over it. Maybe if you simply said, Yeah- let's get her to interview so that she could clear the record on a number of issues, such as TPP - maybe then could we move past the whole 9 months without an interview comments. It a very simple concept, and you're making it so technical and complicating. She wants to be the leader of the free world and you want to make a case for her, let's start with being transparent. When Obama was campaigning he wasn't shying away from reporters or interviews, was he? Is Trump shying away from reporters? He's the biggest moron to walk this planet, yet he's neck and neck with her AND!!! he's still giving interviews and talking to the press.

She apologies for emails... ok. You ripped Johnson for his fuck up... Yet she had one of the most important positions in the world and she can't tell wtf is classified and what isn't. Which is the bigger fuck up? You said Johnson's comment disqualified him, or something of that nature. How about HRC?

She can apologies all she wants..... That's great, but that doesn't excuse her character and all the shit she has demonstrated before hand. It takes time, just like anything else, all of that requires transparency- I'm still waiting on her transcripts - that would have shown a great deal of transparency and true effort - Obama didn't want to show his birth certificate, but he did, why? Because he was the bigger person. Also, apologizing and expecting 20+ years of fuck ups to disappear isn't going to happen over night. For example, if she stated that she believed marriage was between a man and a woman- then that must mean that behind the scenes she was working to protect that institution, which is years of fighting against the good guys. Sorry, but a simple apology doesn't cut it in my book. I get it, her Christian heart opened up and made her change her ways. Now she's for the "gays" - and she's fighting for their causes. To me her character has been pretty consistent all these years. She wants to overturn Citizens United and promises to fight hard for it, but BUT but Buuuuuuuuuut she's taking in loads of cash from special interest and has a shit load of groups bring in the cash for her, too.

I don't think I'm being unfair or a conspiracy loony. I'm critical of her character and some of her actions, and yes there are a shit load of other issues that can be discussed. We're just scratching the service.

JC29856

rssesq said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN8nt4N3hvo

Lol. Awesome!

mrussel1

1. So it's not okay for her to change her position on gays or TPP
2. It is okay for Obama to do so
3. I said just a few days ago that she needs to get out and get in front of the press more often. She can't run out the clock. No worries, I know we can't all remember everything another person posts.
4. You'll keep rehashing the same points in alternatively hostile language. Can't wait for that prose.
5. You are interested in my phallic movements related to public policy

Got it all. Can't wait to read the same thing again any moment.

Free

bootlegger10 said:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/facebook-cofounder-gift-democrats/index.html

Just making sure all you liberals who hate corporations and the money they inject to elections have another example to get mad about. Oh wait, you won't care because the ends justify the means in ALL cases for liberals.

LMAO! Not only are we to think the big bogey man will win, but big Dem money will buy the election even more so. Like we're not already aware of how rigged it is. Of course not! Not when Clinton News Network helps keep the fear rolling and money involved in elections.

Boxes&Books

mrussel1 said:

1. So it's not okay for her to change her position on gays or TPP
2. It is okay for Obama to do so
3. I said just a few days ago that she needs to get out and get in front of the press more often. She can't run out the clock. No worries, I know we can't all remember everything another person posts.
4. You'll keep rehashing the same points in alternatively hostile language. Can't wait for that prose.
5. You are interested in my phallic movements related to public policy

Got it all. Can't wait to read the same thing again any moment.

let's put this to rest.
1) It's definitely ok to change positions - However some of the issues are a huge deal, and they aren't simply glossed over - She flipped on the TPP and the Flint situation because it was hot at the moment. I didn't hear anything regarding Flint after that. That doesn't strike me as a genuine individual. Are you as forgiving of Trump or Romney when they were flip flopping every week? So what's the verdict on TPP? Can we agree that it's a grey area for her? I would think that TPP is a huge agreement.
2) Obama has done it as well and if I wasn't critical on a certain issue, then I'm sure someone else was. I know i was very vocal on the patriot act, net neutrality, and several other issues. Some issues it appeared he was being pressured into, and some it seemed like he flat out supported. No politician is getting a free pass. It's part of the job and it makes us all a part of the process.
3) Didn't see your post, but like you said about me, I can't wait to read the same thing again in a few moments - where you're defending her 9 month record of not giving press conferences or attempting to silence someone because she won by 4 million votes. Many folks on here have even said that it's great strategy for her not to give press conferences. I guess they assume she can ride it out and get the "W" without answering to the people... that's certainly not good for our democracy and I'm sure you guys didn't like it when Bush was doing it.
4) Yes, I will continue to rehash the same point because it's relevant and it speaks volumes. I think it's critical that people understand that our democracy is being compromised (no I'm not suggesting it's the end of the world). There is a reason why she's neck and neck with one, if not thee, worst candidate in history. Some people don't have the luxury of reading every thread/post, so you'll have to excuse me if I missed one. I'm not here for you, as I'm sure you aren't here for me- we're out here trying to get information out and trying to give new perspectives thoughts to an already complicated process.
5) glad to see you understood my point. But not interested.

Obama use to say that we were striving for a more perfect union. I feel that being critical of candidates contributes to that process. You probably will read something similar, because most people around here are going back and forth with the same old punchlines - regardless of the side you're on. I'll give you the same advice you gave someone else on the board - and I'll add a personal touch to your outstanding message; The beauty in all of this is that you don't have to read my post. I promise not to lie about anyone or anything in my post.

P.S.
a deep discussion on policy would be fantastic, however I don't think I disagree with you on a whole lot of issues- You're defending a politician and you're defending a lot of the process and actions that have taken place by institutions and by individuals.... those things I disagree with.... Hence all the back and fourth around these parts.

Free

tonifig8 said:

Gern Blansten said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-hillary-clinton-email-story-is-out-of-control/2016/09/08/692947d0-75fc-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html?tid=sm_fb&utm_term=.ba8830ba9723

...In fact, Ms. Clinton’s emails have endured much more scrutiny than an ordinary person’s would have, and the criminal case against her was so thin that charging her would have been to treat her very differently. Ironically, even as the email issue consumed so much precious airtime, several pieces of news reported Wednesday should have taken some steam out of the story. First is a memo FBI Director James B. Comey sent to his staff explaining that the decision not to recommend charging Ms. Clinton was “not a cliff-hanger” and that people “chest-beating” and second-guessing the FBI do not know what they are talking about. Anyone who claims that Ms. Clinton should be in prison accuses, without evidence, the FBI of corruption or flagrant incompetence.

Second is the emergence of an email exchange between Ms. Clinton and former secretary of state Colin Powell in which he explained that he used a private computer and bypassed State Department servers while he ran the agency, even when communicating with foreign leaders and top officials. Mr. Powell attempted last month to distance himself from Ms. Clinton’s practices, which is one of the many factors that made the email story look worse. Now, it seems, Mr. Powell engaged in similar behavior.

Last is a finding that 30 Benghazi-related emails that were recovered during the FBI email investigation and recently attracted big headlines had nothing significant in them. Only one, in fact, was previously undisclosed, and it contained nothing but a compliment from a diplomat. But the damage of the “30 deleted Benghazi emails” story has already been done.

Ms. Clinton is hardly blameless. She treated the public’s interest in sound record-keeping cavalierly. A small amount of classified material also moved across her private server. But it was not obviously marked as such, and there is still no evidence that national security was harmed. Ms. Clinton has also admitted that using the personal server was a mistake. The story has vastly exceeded the boundaries of the facts.

Imagine how history would judge today’s Americans if, looking back at this election, the record showed that voters empowered a dangerous man because of . . . a minor email scandal. There is no equivalence between Ms. Clinton’s wrongs and Mr. Trump’s manifest unfitness for office.

Fucking finally!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yev6Hi4LDFY

: