YOU conflated the OP noting several specific Clinton lies with the Trump meme. In fact, identifying lies does not prove CORRUPT.

The two attributes are venality OR dishonesty. Under that definition, Hillary is known to be corrupt. It is not possible to deny that if you are honest.

In the political sphere corruption usually refers to a more narrow range: bribery, nepotism, coercion, misappropriation, etc. Under this narrower range, corruption has yet to be shown, but the Clinton Foundation and Hillary's Wall Street millions offer ripe targets for speculation.

The fact that she refused to fully cooperate with the Inspector General when she continually said she would should be enough to convince anyone that she dirty.

and Occam's Razor clearly applies here. She did it to keep her dealings out of the reach of the regulatory/compliance network of the Federal government, because age either knew they were illegal or she knew they would be politically damaging to her next run for POTUS.

And all of this comes from a candidate who is already identified by a majority of Americans as not trustworthy. Expecting the benefit of the doubt is just plain silly. Her reputation - and that of Bill Clinton - were earned over 40+ years of public political life. They need to quit blaming everyone else and take a look in the mirror. She has no one to blame but herself.

was a good reason.

State was investigating potential lapses in security and violation of their internal rules..which are not laws. FBI investigation may involve something more serious so no attorney would advise her to go on record with another entity until the FBI is through with their investigation.

Principles have no place in their world

We needed you to remind us that you despise Hillary with every cell in your body.

Shit, everybody does it from time to time.

Would you like a piece of cake now to celebrate?

(hint: it's about the MOTIVATION behind these propaganda posts that matters.)

Propaganda, we crossed a dangerous line

... rather than deal with the actual issue that she did something bad.

So you're part of "the gang"? I wasn't even talking to you.

Who does "you" refer to? Also, you didn't exactly spell out who you were talking to, so one could take a reltively broad meaning if they so chose. Which I did.

Who the heck else would it refer to? It was a reply to the original post - someone who attacks Hillary for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And then evening tea and crumpets.

Oh poor thing, she's being attacked at every meal of the day! What's that thing Hillary acolytes keep saying, "Politics ain't bean bag"? Are meals now sexist as well?

Back to the point, one can, and did, take it rather more broadly. Besides whichus BernieBros have to stick together and make sure no meals are missed.

All day, every day, celebrate it yes, but don't whine like a little baby when people point out that one is no longer a credible source of information. If someone is nastier than any Republican I work with, and they are on a supposedly Democrat-friendly site, it's fair to write them off as a hater.

But seriously, you aren't exactly a highly credible souce of information either, having given up all you cognitive capabilities to support your candidate regardless of the information about her.

So easy to use logic that seems to make an angry person feel it necessary to post an ad hominem.

adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

Origin

Obviously I'm right and yet you argue - that's childish.

You seem to like to argue for the sake of arguing.

So, that's - buh-bye.

who can't be bothered with facts

This whole thing makes me sick. This election cycle is the most desgusting of my life time. That is not easy as it had to beat 1968, which started with such promise.

Or most of the media?

editorial you are referring to, the one that ends with: "While not illegal behavior, it was disturbingly unmindful of the rules."

Can't get excited by that, in a period when the rules were significantly changing, as long as nothing seriously top secret was compromised. Don't care about "could have beens" either. They "could have been" hacked on the Pentagon's system just as easily.

So they did not make that call. It is in the report introduction and everything

"paper of record" does not support Trump and has run many, many negative articles about Bernie Sanders. You are very wrong that only "Trump white wingers" and "rabid Berners" care about this. It's all about perception in the U.S. (as you know) and the corporate owned media is right now full of negative articles about Clinton's actions and statements with regard to that home server.

She pandered to us for our own good, to keep us from becoming discouraged and cynical.

And besides, when the Presumptive Nominee does it then it's not illegal. It's a lot like being President, many of the little rules and regulations don't need to be adhered to, you just play from the gut, fly by the seat of your pants, wing it so to speak.

After all, it's only tradition that keeps Obama from declaring half of Congress terrorists and having them whacked with drone strikes. He has the legal authority under the Patriot act to do what he determines necessary for the security of the nation. I think that's a bit extreme myself, simple decimation should get their attention fairly quickly and things could proceed with a strong sense of who has the upper hand.

Remember?

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=clinton+lies+email

For example:
“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me.”
Hillary, March 10th, 2015

Fact: Bill Clinton has sent two emails in his life - both sent 16 or more years ago.

Hillary and her supporters refuse to see that her ship is taking in an alarming amount of water. Bandstand on the Titanic, indeed.

Let it go already, it leads nowhere.

And that according to Lawrence O'Donnell she has never reversed a polling trend once it started to sink.
I know some here love her, but its a big big gamble to run with her.
I haven't seen one shred of evidence that she can win in the General when everyone votes.
If nobody cares about either candidate they will stay home. Tune out.

Will never be our President!