"Could be the end result" is any investigation ever. It's more useful to look at what's actually going on than trial based on lack of information (I, for one, am still picky about needing evidence for a conviction, although I realize social media works differently).
I think it is more useful to realize the FBI does not simply go on witch hunts against Democratic frontrunners without cause. There likely will not be criminal charges, but her personal misconduct and lack of regard for the public's right to information is clear.
Even high ranked Republicans are clear this is a blatantly partisan attempt at defamation:
An opinion piece from the Washington Post using one misstatement and two other opinions is not much in the way of evidence.
And the suggestion that Clinton leaked information was faked:
Neither is an MSNBC hit piece which holds as much worth as Fox News does for liberals. I would need to see a far more credible source than anything from the Maddow online crowd.
This is, by the way, the eighth house or senate committee to investigate the issue. This isn't new ground. Regarding the first seven:
This is the first House Select Committee on this topic and it seems odd that, even up until yesterday, new emails, including ones from Ambassador Stevens, have continued to surface. Possibly if the Democratic party had any interest in the truth about four dead Americans in Libya rather than covering themselves for elections, we wouldn't still be going over the same ground. One doesn't reward the criminal just because his lawyer can drag out the case. By the way, those other committees did find misconduct and/or incompetence in the government Clinton was a chief player in. Not exactly the kind of thing which qualifies her for higher office.
If you're still eager to find a crime and impeach someone, though, you're in luck. While $4.5 million of tax payer money hasn't proven anything against Clinton, *Awaits the same outrage demonstrated for allegations against Clinton*
Again, I find nothing about MSNBC to be credible in the slightest, but if Gowdy is guilty of the same sorts of misconduct Clinton surely is then yes, he should not be allowed to be President either. Even though this investigation is the only reason we, the people, ever found out about her server, this really isn't all about Benghazi. Clinton, in general, has always appeared to consider herself above the law and, while she may not have broken one, her obvious intent was to keep all of her dealings behind locked doors, even those she had no right to keep from the people. It isn't always the initial step, either, but the coverup. Not only did she admittedly make the mistake of having a private server, but then compounded it by deleting and attempting to destroy all evidence while expecting everyone to take her word for it. A word that didn't come, would not have come, had she not been caught by the Benghazi investigation.
Diid Clinton do something wrong? Dunno. But three years, several million dollars, and eight committees haven't found anything.
Nothing yet, and maybe there never will be. The money and time spent so far is just as much on the hands of Democrats who could have simply been forthcoming with everything rather than hiding behind private servers and youtube videos. Transparency is something neither the current nor a future Clinton administration knows anything about.
you're just narrowing down the sampling until it matches your preconceptions? Cool.
Narrowing down the sampling? This thread is about current Presidential candidates. If Obama was running for a third term, he would be in the discussion. The Democratic field stands as it is, old, caucasian, 100% non diverse. I would expect that to concern the Democratic base but then I guess it's by any means necessary
Shall we discuss how many times Trump has run for president?
Or perhaps it's better that Carson never has? ...nor for any other public office, for that matter.
Discuss away as I'm hoping everyday that something non health wise will derail Trump. It is humorous how some conspiracy nuts have even claimed Trump is a Clinton plant. Democrat, Republican, someone please stop the Trump train.
Carson, on the other hand, is a man I can totally see as President and I'm not sure how any Democrat who backed our current President can complain about inexperience. In fact, how many races has the current Democratic frontrunner won. Clinton was annointed Senator of New York, where she did nothing of note, then became Secretary of State where she did far worse. I believe I would take a lack of experience over a record of failure especially when all Washington insiders like Clinton are so looked down upon.
In fairness, I think the Republicans are far more likely to impair my way of life than the Iranians. But yes, I get your notion there, and Hillary isn't the most thrilling candidate. All I suggest is that, when stating an opinion against her or her party, you do it with a fair mind toward facts and legitimate comparison rather than cherry picking sound bites.
It is all a matter of opinion in the end. To me, the giveaway mentality when our enconomy truly is teetering on the brink and the lack of security on our borders, moreso for those who would do us h.arm than the mouths we really can no longer afford to feed, is what endangers America most. I guess I lean more Libertarian though I just can't go with Paul's foreign policy, or what I at least know of it. Cruz I believe to be an honest man but the media has turned him into a pariah just for taking a stand. Disagree with him, fine, but more people need to take a firm stand for whatever they believe. I also like Rubio but I've chosen Carson and/or Fiorina for their intelligence, their honesty, and the fact they both stand outside the establishment. They have flaws like anyone else but there is no perfect candidate.
I think my disappointment in the Democratic party is that, from the outside, it looks like winning is the only thing that matters. Although he isn't my candidate, Sanders should be far ahead of Clinton. He stands for his convictions, tells things as he believes them, and has a true grass roots, of the people base. Still people have Clinton in the lead only because they think she can win. Why? What is there about her specifically that makes anyone think she is the one right choice? That is why it angers me to see the Democratic field as it is. Being President is worth fighting for but it seems there are only two who even care. I was disappointed that Biden decided not to run not because I would have voted for him, but because it might have created competition which brings better ideas. Where is Warren, Booker, any number of others? I don't understand why no one else on the Democratic side seems to want to help this country avoid the Clinton machine anymore than I understand why Republicans are riding the Trump train. Compromise comes from standing for one's principles while seeking out common ground, not each side calling the other racist or America haters just for differences in opinion. Trump vs Clinton ends well for no one interested in America as a whole rather than one's side 'winning'.