Hillary Corrupt - you can search her emails and Podesta's online, which show that her foundation (from which her family drew salary and benefit) was a pay-to-play scheme demonstrated at the least by her explicitly considering donor status in her meeting calendar while Sec. (not to mention donations to her foundation falling off 95%+ the minute her influence tanked), and that the media were funneling debate questions to her ahead of the debates. That's what we know for certain during the last primary because we can read it directly in the record. Separately, when she knew her records were about to be subpoenaed she destroyed data (the 30k emails) claiming they were personal - she didn't make a claim that they were privileged or irrelevant to the matter, much less let a judge determine this - she preemptively destroyed the information. This is called spoliation of evidence and is a crime that you and I, were we stewards of a company's data, would be put on the rack for. Check your attempts at regaining cognitive consonance and consider how this speaks to her character for the average person participating in a primary against her. And BTW, at this point it's pretty disingenuous to be talking about Hillary as somebody who doesn't thrive on peddling conspiracy theories.

Yes, she was corrupt and I still voted for her because it was status quo corruption.

Her opponent has taken that to new levels and if we are to discuss this topic it requires openness to the flaws of all involved, including our preferred candidates. To not do so is to engage in partisan bickering which is not appropriate here.

> her foundation (from which her family drew salary and benefit) was a pay-to-play scheme

Citation needed about pay to play. Also, foundations pay their directors. Why is that surprising?

> the media were funneling debate questions to her

One person funneled one question to her. The Sanders campaign also said that same person helped their campaign, with one aide saying, "If Bernie Sanders had been the nominee of the party and the Russians hacked my emails instead of John [Podesta]’s, we'd be reading all these notes between Donna and I and they'd say Donna was cozying up to the Bernie campaign."

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/3038...

> Separately, when she knew her records were about to be subpoenaed she destroyed data (the 30k emails) claiming they were personal - she didn't make a claim that they were privileged or irrelevant to the matter, much less let a judge determine this - she preemptively destroyed the information

Again, citation needed that she did this on purpose. The person who actually did it says otherwise.

> This is called spoliation of evidence and is a crime

It would be a crime if it happened as you said, but the investigation came to the opposite conclusion.

> at this point it's pretty disingenuous to be talking about Hillary as somebody who doesn't thrive on peddling conspiracy theories.

I never said Clinton doesn't, but now that you mention it, she clearly doesn't anywhere near as much as Sanders and Trump supporters.

Please don't lump those two together. Yes, there are Sanders supporters that are "fringe", but the man himself has been clear and consistent on economics and policy his entire career.

After he lost the primaries to Clinton (a process I personally think was gamed by the DNC), he publicly supported her and encouraged his supporters to do the same.

We're discussing politics on HN and I don't want to incur dang's admonishment again. We are in very uncertain times these days so I think it's important to discuss key issues in a cogent and concise manner.

> Yes, there are Sanders supporters that are "fringe", but the man himself has been clear and consistent on economics and policy his entire career.

The key difference between Sanders and other politicians like McCain, Obama, etc. is that Sanders doesn't push against the fringe elements of his supporters, which encouraged them to grow into a large portion of his supporters.