>>>>> Hillary is probably the best qualified for the job.
>>>Actually, she isn't.
>>>The primary attribute we want in a president is an ethical base and she has absolutely none.
>>
>>What I find interesting is that the feds are (very likely) performing a criminal inquiry on her, and yet they won't call it that.
>
>No doubt she messed up big time on this one.
>What the feds call it or don't call it is talk-show fodder at this point.
>It seems indisputable that she put information that since been deemed classified on a server that was not secure.
>That's a big time screw up and puts her judgment in question for sure and possibly her motives.
>Again, her motives are talk-show fodder, but that kind of error in judgment is huge.

Well, her motives are more than talk-show fodder, if she indeed was using that information in any context with financial dealings with other countries.

Here's the problem with her - at the moment, there is no hard smoking gun. (Though I agree, it's nearly indisputable she lied about classified information and her server). But there is STRONG circumstantial evidence of serious wrong-doing and violation of federal laws.

What is amazing is that the feds moved forward very aggressively with a criminal probe on David Petraeus. They seem to be proceeding with such a high amount of caution on Hillary Clinton. Major double-standard.