Who's to say this isn't what she meant?

And we have gone above and beyond most of the charities that I understand, beyond legal requirements, beyond standards to voluntarily disclose donors, and also too, reduce sources of funding that raised questions

In 33 seconds HRC managed to lie, confuse and admit ignorance. I am impressed. Actually, I am depressed.

It's the Right Wing Conspiracy--no, it's the Russians--no, it's just about AIDs and aids, the latter being to my personal wealth.

Now let's talk about my platform--fellow Americans, I am the Not Trump.

that her deleted emails would not be recoverable.
I'm pretty sure that is the definition of INTENT that Comey said that Hillary wasn't guilty of.
Hiding and obfuscation of her private email detailing yoga classes and Chelsea's wedding.
Good lord, what does she have to be caught doing before she is charged with criminal intent?
People say that there isn't a smoking gun on her using the state department's actions to pad both Bill's pockets and the foundations, but I disagree. The fact that Chelsea had access to the email server is proof enough for me to show that she accessed it so that Bill would know where Hillary had state department business and he would be there to give a paid speech before Hillary did whatever she was in the area to do.
Then there's all the information about Sidney Bluementhal being in Libya and Sudan and sending Hillary classified information about business deals that would profit the foundation.
And the NSA said that he stole classified information from them and sent it to Hillary. If that is true, then why wasn't he charged? Did the state department lean on the NSA? How else to explain how he got away with that?
I'm so disgusted by all of the democrats and Hillary's supporters who have turned a blind eye to the corruption of the Clintons! And hiding behind the but Trump is worse bullshit. I don't think he would be able to do half of the things he says he will do. Which joe pointed out in the EBs tonight.

Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is ‘dangerous’ only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the ‘free-choices’ of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent.

If this was a republican team doing these things, I'm sure that they would have a problem with what the Clintons have done, don't you?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-25/fbi-admits-clinton-used-softwar...

So I definitely agree with you. And I'd really appreciate an explanation of the whole "short circuit" thing

"That's really the bottom line here and I have said, during the interview and in many other occasions over the past months, that what I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly," Clinton told reporters.

"So I may have short-circuited it and for that, I will, you know, try to clarify," she added.

I wonder when she is planning to clarify, BTW. When h*ll freezes over, I'm sure ...

Her speciality is to try to make some factually true statement when she is asked a difficult question. She doesn't actually answer the question, she just makes a barely related comment that is usually factually true. Then her fans say, "How can you say that there is anything wrong with what she said?" ... and if you only look at WHAT she said, she looks fine.

Wallace showed video of her making 3 false statements, and then asked her to respond to the American public. She simply did a nice tap dance, ignores the question, and her supporters do not give a shit at all.

And if she DOES manage to get elected, she is surely going to have the honor of being impeached right along with hubby. HRC, you go girl!

Sorry to go all English-major here, but one of the two discernible differences between Hillary and Trump (that puts Hillary in a good light, anyway)is her style. Not that it's a good speaking style, but it makes her look like a competent, intelligent professional, contrasted to Trump's more demagogue-meets-pro-wrestler mien.

Is it too much to ask that her (probably highly-paid) speechwriters do their job well?

I found it last night. Fantastic article by Glenn Greenwald:

So if you want to defend the millions of dollars that went from tyrannical regimes to the Clinton Foundation as some sort of wily, pragmatic means of doing good work, go right ahead. But stop insulting everyone’s intelligence by pretending that these donations were motivated by noble ends. Beyond that, don’t dare exploit LGBT rights, AIDS, and other causes to smear those who question the propriety of receiving millions of dollars from the world’s most repressive, misogynistic, gay-hating regimes. Most important, accept that your argument in defense of all these tawdry relationships — that big-money donations do not necessarily corrupt the political process or the politicians who are their beneficiaries — has been and continues to be the primary argument used to sabotage campaign finance reform.

Word.