Me? No. I'm watching you unable to express a single salient point on your own. Here's one you can work from: Hillary Clinton, if she were anyone else, would now at the very least be unable to get a security clearance, and she's been steadily lying to you about the circumstances around her handling, hiding and destruction of government records. This pleases you. You like that she lies to you, because you're smug enough to think that even though you know better, you're hoping that everyone else in the world is too dumb not to fall for it. Your own response, rather than being your own factual rebuttal of that characterization of her actions, will be to say that I haven't sufficiently read other material.
This is because you know she's indefensible, and you know that if you use your own words here to say that she (for example) hasn't been lying about such things, you'll be confirmed as a fool. So, of course you're deflecting and attempting to avoid going on the record. Predictable, typical, nothing new. But still entertaining in its transparency.