I'm still waiting for anyone to explain how Hillary didn't commit a felony in e-mailing communications that have now been redacted as classified.
It sounds to me like she probably did.
Then how is it that she is still at or near the top in most polls?
Do Democrats not care that their preferred candidate engaged in felony possession of classified information on a less-secure home server in order to hide her correspondence from FOIA requests - it's TIME for a woman?
Or is the field so desperately thin that they're just supporting her over an avowed socialist?
Or are many Democrats simply not aware that Clinton likely committed a felony because it hasn't gotten enough media coverage (the MSM actually is covering it quite a bit, though they haven't really focused on this smoking gun)?
These are all serious questions, btw. I'm genuinely curious about the liberal mindset on this. Conservative voters would have ousted any of their candidates a long time ago over something like this, but they've got many more candidates to choose from.
It's really pretty remarkable. The Dems' current choices are (1) a septuagenarian socialist, (2) a sexagenarian socialist-lite who engaged in felony possession of classified material on a home server to hide her correspondence, (3) Martin O'Malley.
O'Malley is by far the most palatable choice, and he's barely registering in the polls!