Originally posted by red g jacks
no... the thing is, you didn't answer my question but instead decided to deflect it, as is to be expected by members of the ant colony.
Why would she do that? Honestly, I don't know.
But it's not consistent with a coverup either.
can you give me an example of a scandal that trump has that hasn't been thoroughly fleshed out by the media?
Lesse, his are more business oriented, but for one.... Trump was invested in a development, other buyers were given the impression he had liability, he set up a shell company, pulled out, cost them 18 million
nah thats just a part of being the frontrunner in genenral.... but she is lucky she such a powerful face/name otherwise this could have sunk her easily. say a mitt romney type campaign..no way that an "investigation" doessn't sink him
I really don't think something this size could've done much to Romney.
And note that pushing too hard on something small can often backfire, because it makes people think, "Wow, they must really dislike X, they're being unfair," rather than the topic of the scandal. *Any* politician at the higher level pretty much has to be capable of raising a defense if the opponent tries to overplay something majorly, or they'll be sunk even without a scandal.
Really with both the e-mails and Benghazi, the Republicans should've taken their hits and moved on. You can use scandals to chip at a foe, but most scandals are not big enough to sink anyone who can be a serious contender to begin with.