Probably going to ruffle some feathers with this comment, but I'm hoping that Eric Snowden still has contacts in the outside world who know the truth and can prove it. I'm hoping that he and they are waiting for Justice to issue the indictment (yeah, yeah, I'm not holding my breath), and if they don't, they drop the one email she can't lie her way out of.

IMO, IBD is more libertarian than "far right wing". Unless of course you can point to any editorial that isn't about free-market economics or, in this case against an extremely corrupt politician, of either party.

If you can show me an IBD "anti-choice" or editorial that references God, then I will reassess my opinion.

As far as the WSJ, I wouldn't call them "moderately right-wing", but very tepidly, afraid of offending, very slightly "right-wing". About one degree from "middle-of-the-road".

"No, it's not just an "opinion".
I should have said claim, proposition, or assertion.

I still don't see the news reminding voters how corrupt she is. It seems like reaching, as if her critics truly have nothing and are reaching far to find something to criticize.

No, it's not just an "opinion". No none says it's a scandal because someone says so. What she did has been reported for months.

You dismissively said you only read about half the article. The very first paragraph says "She is consistently battered by news that reminds voters just how corrupt she is and now is facing a report that the FBI director is convinced she broke the law."

"Reminding voters" how corrupt she is does not mean scandal because they say so. A report that the FBI director is convinced she broke the law does not mean that there is scandal because he said so.

Dismissive evasions of Clinton's actions are apologetics for an idol regardless of what it does.

"It is a scandal because of what she did, not because someone says so."
That's one opinion, which is different from my understanding of the article.

It was obvious to me why she did it. Not rocket science. No matter what she says, I just dont believe its anything else but trying to hide what she was doing and give her the ability to erase things quietly (like Nixon did !!!). It cost Nixon the presidency and his reputation, and it should do the same to Hillary.

I hope that in the quietude of the voting booth that people will view her honesty and credibility as lacking, and just vote for something else. I would understand if her supporters went for Sanders out of disgust. After all, both she and Sanders are socialists (at least he admits it)

AND SO DO I.

All true and all protected against by the establishment media.

Several major officials in the Clinton and Obama administrations have used personal email accounts to avoid accountability and evade FOIA requests for information. When sued they destroyed most of the records that they could. Cackles took the personal email account gambit to a new level of mafia government with her own email server system.

I would only modify your answer in one way: "Most people, [already on her side] won't see it that way." There are many, many that are fired up and angry at what she did. Also, look at her high negatives, across the political board. That in itself may make enough of the people who may have voted for her, yawn, and go back to bed.

Everyone of those who does is a plus for her opponent...

Yes, it's a laugh. She won't go silently...but if she did, you really think Sanders is electable? I don't. He'll get his kids, but won't motivate the base that would have come out for Hillary. And, if it's even possible, he'll motivate the Republican base against him, even more than she.

I agree. Even what she's publicly admitted to is illegal and should be prosecuted. Her private email system with classified information is, I'm sorry, a huge, illegal, deal, Not to mention the myriad of things and connections the FBI is looking at. And I'm no fan of the FBI. And it is unquestionably beyond what Patraeus did, and yet they complain about him getting off with "a slap on the wrist". And, of course, I'll have to repeat the "anybody but a Clinton" cliche. But sometimes, cliches have a basis in reality. If, as is likely, the FBI recommends indictment, and Lynch protects her, I hope there are justified, detailed, moral leaks all over the place.

funny. not at all Its obvious she wanted to have the ability to hide what she wrote in the case it because politically damaging to HER. For that reason, I would never support her. Most people dont see it this way, though, which amazes me.

My grandchildren deserve better.

You mean you don't buy the line that she set up an elaborate private server because she only wanted "one device" to "simplify" her life? LOL

It is a scandal because of what she did, not because someone says so. Rejecting her for what she did and "for political reasons" is not a fallacy, let alone a "transparent fallacy", apologetics for the Clinton idolatry notwithstanding. Echos of leftist 'narrative' do not pass for reasoned discussion on this forum.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has a typical leftist slant to the news and has for a very long time. Editorials were good years ago but now are more establishment Republican.

Investor's Business Daily (IBD) has much better editorial policy.

Calling anything "far right" or "right wing" is a leftist smear with no meaning other than expression of leftist contempt.

The notion that any focus on Clinton's arrogantly illegal security breaches means that there is nothing else over which to criticize her, let alone "absolutely nothing to criticize about her" is of course preposterous and reflects a leftist head-in-the sand mentality emotionally protecting their idol.

Clinton should have stopped her life-long campaign when she became an open Alinskyite in 1969. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

"I still think a publication like this calling her what she is"
It seems like they're using begging the question, though. They're saying her private e-mail system is a huge deal because people are writing articles about it. They say this in an article about it, so to me it comes off as "this is a scandal because I say it is." It comes off as using a transparent fallacy to criticize her for political reasons.

WSJ = Wall-Street Journal - It is great at summarizing the news on the front page and providing in-depth info inside. The articles give you the facts, not a political opinion. The op-ed page provides right-wing opinions on the news.
IBD - Investor's Business Daily - Last time I read it (over 10 years ago) it had a political bias in the news, which is only useful if you want the facts that support a certain political view instead of the truth.

Hillary does what she is told to do by the powers that be. If you think anything will stick on her you really do not understand how things work in this country now. All of those running in the presidential race are there because of the Deep State except Donald Trump and maybe Ted Cruz. Hillary, Bernie, Jeb, Kasich, Rubio...all Deep State candidates. All mindless robots.