Yes Folks, Clinton was Guilty AF

So I made a Facebook post calling for Trump to pardon Snowden and Assange. Then in responding to a comment saying Snowden was a traitor and Assange an enemy of the United States, I pointed out that 1) they were whistleblowers and 2) they're crimes pale in comparison to those in our government.

​Can we at least put Clapper (perjury), Brennan (illegal torture, spying on the Senate, perjury), Comey (stealing gov docs, being a douchebag everyone hates), Clinton
(muh emails, bullshit foundation), Bush, Cheney, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Kristol, Powell, Bolton, Abrams, Rice, Frum, and several others I'm forgetting off the top of my head (lying us into the Iraq war) in prison too?

Notice Clinton is just one of many and I even implied the hype around Clinton's emails was overblown ("muh"). But some liberals just aren't that tolerant of even mild disagreement. Indeed, this is becoming a major problem on the Left. For example:

But I digress. So here's the response I got. (I remind you I referred to George W. Bush as a war criminal.)

Explain the Clinton emails thing, please. And the "bullshit foundation". Do so with facts. I'll wait. Take your time.

OK... her guilt was obvious so here goes,

The email thing is pretty obvious although in and of itself, it was overblown. I mean, before Comey said he wouldn't bring charges for what amounted to no particular reason, he pretty much said she was guilty AF: 

As far as the Clinton Foundation. Well you could ask their own law firm, Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett.

​Or Doug Band.

Or perhaps even Chelsea Clinton.

Or the king of Morocco.

Or an endless series of coincidentally-timed large donations/speaking fees from foreign countries or Wall Street.

Admittedly Trump's foundation was also bullshit, but it was tiny and mostly dedicated to buying large portraits of himself to feed his narcissism in the weirdest way possible.

Oh, but here's the thing, "OK, so you understand that she had a private server (they all do), and that of the 30,000 emails uncovered they found ZERO that were problematic?" And a bunch of other blather. Me again,

​What do you mean they found nothing? Many of the emails were marked confidential or top secret. You're not allowed to send confidential emails over a private server. You're also not allowed to delete 30,000 emails after receiving a subpoena (some of which had confidential information) and not all of which were recovered.
​
The Chelsea link was by far the weakest as she was just expressing her concerns. The others are more noteworthy, particularly the one discussing Simpon, Thacher and Bartlett. Their foundation was really sketchy.

But you must understand that I just "wanted justify whatever preconceived nonsense you want to conjure." Here's the full semi-coherent "rebuttal,"

 Realize, that every email has a recipient, often times multiple. Even "deleted" emails ended up having recipients and trails.

Just curious, what do you think was in those emails? How many investigations into EVERY OTHER PRIVATE SERVER are you demanding?

This is a CLOWN argument. It was a CLOWN investigation.

The DELETED emails were deemed by her to be not related to work. Imagine what would happen had she deleted emails and they found ONE which was related to work, that she tried to erase? I mean, of the THIRTY THOUSAND EMAILS they weren't able to find ONE email, or recipient, that somehow displayed illegal activity?

C''mon, Peter Pan, just stop it. There's no equal action for every action to justify whatever preconceived nonsense you want to conjure.

It was a farce. It was investigated MULTIPLE TIMES. It was the ONLY private server investigated. Stop making shit up to make yourself feel better about whatever it is you believe.

it's [sic] embarrassing. Maybe not to clown show parler users, but to realists.

And I read the very article you're referencing. Did you?

The endless series of baseless assertions and ad hominems almost convinced me.

Indeed, it's weird that I keep getting told they found nothing when they found classified information, which was basically what they were looking for. (And it was probably hacked by foreign governments because it wasn't sufficiently secure.) 

​Anyways, my response,

Yes, it was investigated and she was found to have illegally used a private server, sent classified documents on it repeatedly and deleted emails after receiving a subpoena. I had no idea you got to delete emails you deemed not related to work after receiving a subpoena (even though several of them actually did contain classified information). Good to know.

And the "Colin Powell did it too" defense fails badly BTW. Again, from the not-so-Trump friendly WaPo:

1. Clinton exclusively used a private email account to conduct State Department business. Powell did not.
2. Clinton had a private email server, located at her house. Powell did not.
3. The rules governing electronic communication changed considerably — and got more strict — between Powell's time in office and Clinton's.

Again, while she was blatantly guilty on the email thing, it wasn't especially huge compared to normal government corruption. (I remind you I was originally comparing what Snowden and Assange have done to various politicians, not singling out or even highlighting Clinton).

And yes, Trump's nepotistically inclined daughter and son-in-law as well as others in the Trump admin used private emails. And they should have been punished too. It was definitely hypocritical (which is not unusual for Trump). Though none of them were Secretary of State nor did they set up private email servers for all business. I haven't seen it confirmed that they used them for classified info, just government business. Which would be a big difference.

I mean General Petraeus went to prison for keeping classified materials in his desk and sharing them with his mistress. A navy cadet was sent to prison for taking a selfie with a radar screen in the background and sending it to his girlfriend. Clinton set up a private server in her own home. I mean, why would she even do that?
And alas, yes, I read the article. And I quote,

"What the governance review lawyers found was a board and charity in disarray organizationally. It was staffed mostly with insiders, practicing weak oversight and inattentive leadership, and possessed of a loose dedication to best practices for foundations of its size and to Arkansas state and IRS regulations governing conflict of interest...

"...But the issue of conflict of interests went beyond the fact that the board did not enforce compliance with its written policy. The review seemed to find some of the issues that have come up on the campaign trail recently. 'Some interviewees reported conflicts of those raising funds or donors, some of whom may have an expectation of quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts,' according to the review."
​
That's pretty damning from an internal review by a law firm they hired themselves.

For all the liberals complaining about "whataboutism" and demanding conservatives "defend Trump without referencing Obama or Hillary" it's amazing how pretty much every defense of Hillary comes down to X Republican or Y member of the Trump administration did it too.

Yes, Trump was corrupt. So was Hillary. Indeed, it is blatantly obvious Hillary Clinton was guilty in the email scandal and that the Clinton Foundation was, at least in part, a pay-for-play scheme. 

Partisanship makes people stupid.