2 ms·

>It could be nothing, but it also could be one of the deepest corruption scandals in the history of the country. That seems to be the theme of Hillary scandals

>It could be nothing, but it also could be one of the deepest corruption scandals in the history of the country. That seems to be the theme of Hillary scandals. It's always some superlative outcome. Either she is going to be exposed as a mastermind or "oh nevermind I guess that's not a big deal after all." It's absurd. An opponent of Clinton making a more modest critique than "she is the antichrist" would be very refreshing. Conservatives and Bernie supporters spent months fuming over how email servers showed exactly how evil Clinton was and the most that came out of it was apparently "extreme carelessness." Years of Benghazi and nothing to show for it but words to be poorly scrawled on protest signs for at least another year or so. I am definitely not informed enough to determine whether or not there is or isn't merit to any given controversy or scandal. There are probably a handful of people who could possibly know for sure. She is definitely one of the most powerful people in the world. She is certainly capable of conspiracy. But I know there are also powerful people who are would benefit a lot from harming her career and her image. Honestly, it's at least worth considering that innuendo, accusations, and connecting dots that aren't there, or are there in a much less dramatic form, are all much cheaper than actually pulling off conspiracies.

r_smart 10y ago
Agreed. I did my best to come across as measured and non-accusatory in my post. I'm very specifically not saying there's anything wrong, but there's evidence that there's some pretty deep corruption here. The trouble is, she seems to be untouchable. People don't seem interested in seriously pursuing investigations into her and her husband, and so you're stuck with apocalypse scenarios and people hand-waving it all away as fine. I don't think either are true. I remember when I got my first degree, in journalism (kinda), it was generally considered that the Watergate scandal would never get published in the modern age. I think the Clintons are pretty much the proof of that.

r_smart 10y ago

Agreed. I did my best to come across as measured and non-accusatory in my post. I'm very specifically not saying there's anything wrong, but there's evidence that there's some pretty deep corruption here. The trouble is, she seems to be untouchable. People don't seem interested in seriously pursuing investigations into her and her husband, and so you're stuck with apocalypse scenarios and people hand-waving it all away as fine. I don't think either are true. I remember when I got my first degree, in journalism (kinda), it was generally considered that the Watergate scandal would never get published in the modern age. I think the Clintons are pretty much the proof of that.