After all this endless discussion, I still haven't grasped a fundamental concept here. Someone who believes Hillary is poison because she cannot be trusted please explain to me like I'm a six year old.
A hostile and politically motivated committee investigates Benghazi for two years, grills Clinton for 11 hours and does not find evidence of wrongdoing by HRC. It also does not conclude that she could have saved any of the 4 lives lost. It does criticize the Defense Department, the CIA, and State for failing to recognize the vulnerability of that outpost.
We don't know everything about the email fuss yet. But can anyone identify any of the following: 1) Which email practice was unique to HRC among current and former State Dept officials, including former SOS; 2) What highly classified and sensitive information was released in such a way that will or might cause us harm; and 3) What factual basis is there to conclude that HRC knowingly used the system she used for illegal or dangerous purposes and whether the same assumption can be made about others who used a similar system?
These are simple questions, and although the answers might be readily available elsewhere, I haven't seen them on this board, despite the fact that so many cite a lack of trust as their primary reason for concluding she is unfit. She is by far the most qualified candidate, and I don't hear many citing democratic platform positions as a reason not to vote for her. It's always her character, and from what I see, the email and Benghazi issues play in important part in that. I don't get it. I DO understand why the GOP plays this angle, but I don't understand why it gains so much purchase.
I'm not a big HRC fan, and I know there ARE plenty of reasons not to vote for her relating to policies she is likely to either support or fail to oppose. But other than Kepler, those reasons to not get a lot of air time.
