Then let's start the investigation.
What do you bet that not all of the releveant or interesting emails were turned over to State or investigating committees?
I would be surprised if there are not at least technical violations of the law, and very possibly more serious breaches. The real question will be is there a prosecution? The Clintons have enough friends and reach to likely derail that.
There are no left parties in the US.
You are one of the ignorant majority I see.
There seem to be one or more gaps between what you believe and what actually is. Unpopularity and non-existence are not the same.
"Left" parties do in fact exist in the US, more than one in fact. Here are a couple:
Communist Party USA
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
And they work hard to move their agendas forward.
Communist Party USA: 'Working with the Democratic Party' is key
Thankfully there are few Americans that are given to this ideology which has proven so murderous over the last century.
Reporters are a huge part of the equation since they produce the content. Editors are likely to come up through the ranks of reporters and will be the same as reporters. Many owners won't care as long as the financial numbers for the newsrooms are acceptable and the brand remains strong. Even owndership by a genuine conservative or Republican doesn't matter if it doesn't result in a change in editorial policy. (And where is the evidence of that on any large scale?)
You also leave out the role of Schools of Journalism, which these days inculcate Liberal / Progressive views into the students. They aren't coming out to find and tell the stories, but to "change the world" and make the news.
All of this would be less of a concern if the media still had the ethic of being "equal opportunity bastards." That is, the reporting might be liberal, but he still expect more or less the same standards of behavior out of liberal politicians as he does out of conservative ones, and is equally ready to write them up. Corruption from liberals should be treated the same as corruption from those claiming to be conservatives. Saddly that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Journalists are far too willing to put their thumbs on the scales these days in favor of their personal ideology.
No, the overall media is quite clearly liberal in training, sympathies and output. They can use the same techniques to get eyeballs as anyone. The real howling is over the existence of a few media outlets with a conservative outlook. That can't be tolerated! And that is why the so called "Fairness Doctrine" has repeated attempts to ressurect it, and the FEC keeps being rumored to be ready to step on Drudge and others. And more ways than just those are being sought to bring government into controlling the media to drive out the small conservative presence.
No, I cite the New York Times reporter quoted there. Are you claiming that the quote was in error? Would you feel better if the quote came from another source?
Well, it's turning out that the book should be recategorized as 'fiction'.
When you turn on "deflectors" you aren't kidding around, although it is more of a "reality distorion field" (props Steve Jobs).
Very little of the book was affected, and it will be part of the public discussion for months, perhaps as long as Hillary is running for or in public office.
The use of a privately provisioned and held email server for use in official business while US Secretary of State was improper and should be investigated, including the question of: were all emails associated with her official duties turned over, why were they turned over so late, and was the email server hacked by foreign intelligence agencies?
Ah, "good" ol' Media Matters! When the chips for Bill and Hill are down, they'll come throught!
NYT reporter: Misdirecting on Clinton stories is what Media Matters "exists to do"
Bombshell book 'Clinton Cash' to get up to 8 revisions, publisher says
... Amazon has emailed those who'd purchased the e-book version that an "updated version" is available.
"The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made," the alert reads.
HarperCollins, which published the book, played down the changes.
"The changes that Amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were," HarperCollins spokeswoman Joanna Pinsker said in an email.
Hmm
Well, I guess we'll see what emerges over time.
You need to learn to think like a politician.
Owner = 1 vote
Labor = 100 votes
Good luck winning an election if you have only owners and labor is against you. Will you argue this point?
Among other things they might reveal how much (if any) of the $2 billion in donations that went to the Clinton Foundation were pay for play. There are a number of large business deals that relied upon State Department approval to go through, and some of the companies involved in those deals made large contributions to the Clintons. One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium reserves. (Not really in the US interest I think.) There are also donations from many troubling sources.
Don't you think the public has a right to know?
Most of the media is run by Liberals, just not ALL of it. That is why Fox News and talk radio are so hated by some - they aren't under Liberal control, and offer a different perspective. That is simply intollerable to some.
Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats. That is where the oft repeated line about "reality having a liberal bias" comes in. That isn't actually true. The facts of life are conservative, but the reporting is generally liberal.
You are reasoning about this without considering key inputs. It doesn't matter much who "the Establishment" wants if nobody in the base votes for them. The selection process is very much one of mobilizing the base of the party because the outcome is determined by votes of party members, not some secret backroom committee.
There is a wide variety of good Republicans candidates running. Bush has to fight his way through them if he is going to be the frontrunner.
I don't think you post here often enough. I encourage you get get an account and post under your own name so that more people can enjoy your insights.
Bernie Sanders is a self described socialist. It means the same as in Europe. Political parties in Europe use the world socialist.
Your claim about Libertarian is nonsense. Perhaps you are too busy. You might want to slow down long enough to at least get some of the facts straight.
Employment and compensation agreements between private employers and employees are outside the scope of government, and these contracts should not be encumbered by government-mandated benefits or social engineering. We support the right of private employers and employees to choose whether or not to bargain with each other through a labor union....
I'm not exactly excited about Hillary,....
For some reason that comes across sort of like: "I can quit smoking anytime I want,
Have the Democrats nobody better to offer? Seriously?
It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.