I read Igor to say: If you want to take down Hillary, take her down with the _facts_.
What if those facts get constantly swept under the rug? What if two sets of "facts" are presented and you have to figure out the truth on your own? Kind of like the O.J. case....do you believe he is innocent just because Cochran proclaimed "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit"?
There's plenty of evidence out there for me to make a decision about her.
Hillary is the epitome of " career politician"...the utter poster child for what repubs AND dems have said they despise. And she has zero problem slinging mud herself. If you think SHE would stick to so called facts, you're living with in a dream world.
As far as my posts...if you REALLY have to know...my first was a suggestion.... to make it to ALL msg boards....and see what happens. The second was a joke...note the laughing emote....posted because another user made an post about paid trolls...to which, as my link shows, there IS smoke to that possible fire...just as there is a ton of smoke to all the Hillary accusations.
And where there's smoke, well...you know the rest. But keep waiting on those "facts".... just be wary/of the flames lapping at your rear
Again, I am NOT defending or supporting Hillary Clinton. I am supporting the rule of law, and making decisions based on facts (NOT ACCUSATIONS, NOT ALLEGATIONS, NOT IMAGINATIONS), and logical reasoning.
You CLAIM that "facts are being swept under a rug." If they have, how do you know that? Can you see through rugs? I'm not trying to be facetious following up your simile, I'm trying to point out that your use of that old idiomatic phrase, is blinding YOU to what is and is not a proper use of factual information.
You want to compare it to the mess that was the OJ Simpson trial? Okay. Then no, you are ENTIRELY wrong, that Cochran's trick phrases is what got Simpson off.
What let Simpson get away with murder, was a series of incompetent actions and decisions by the California law enforcement people, and the prosecutors in that case. They ALLOWED mishandling of the crime scene, they ignored the racism of their officers to taint testimony, and they allowed second rate prosecutors who clearly did't know how to present evidence properly, to grandstand for personal publicity, instead of conducting the trial properly.
I suggest that what you consider to be "evidence" against Clinton, might not qualify as such at all.
You also obliquely mention the "where there's smoke there's fire" witticism. The problem with using that old notion, is that it completely ignores the related saying about how people "blow smoke" in others faces to obscure facts, and other such nonsense.
So far, all of the "smoke" from around Clinton, has a Republican standing next to where it is, fanning it. That doesn't mean Clinton is innocent, it just means that we can't trust that the "smoke" is actually from Clinton, and not from the Republican.
I'm not interested in trying to change your mind. You appear to be the kind of person who depends on being certain in advance of facts, in order to feel secure about yourself. People like that don't listen to alternate facts or logic, so there's no point in illuminating anything for them.
But I am interested in pointing out the mistakes in reasoning people like you are making, because until we decide these things according to the law, and according to an ACCURATE use of all the facts, we will continue to weaken the United States, by placing it under the control of greedy self interested liars, or of idealistic fools.
It would be pretty easy for me to accept data that paints Hillary in a negative light. Its the nature of the world - rarely do people rise to that level without being capable of some seriously scumbaggery.
