Where it comes from really doesn’t much alter my response.
Cody Holmes

What is and what is not tiresome is completely a matter of opinion.

Yes, it is. You just spent a number of characters arguing that “rigged” was too narrowly defined for your personal taste. So what?

It’s tiresome to you because of your confirmation bias.

No, it’s tiresome because thus far, Wikileaks has proven valuable in what appears (to a relative outsider) to be a witch hunt, but worthless in the pursuit of any real justice (if, indeed, there is any genuine justice to be had).

Did you actually link to a tweet to fortify your opinion?

I was mocking your position (cf. my use of the term tiresome, above). I thought that was pretty clear.

Something tells me that’s not an argument you are willing to make.

An argument I’m willing to make is that justice can only be served when the law is deliberately broken (cf. mens rea). Yet most of the people willing to punish Hillary over this appear ignorant of this.

I should have clarified that I do not accept YouTube videos as valid citations. I want to see valid case law, directly applicable to the information revealed by WikiLeaks, not videos. So then:

Thousand of people break the law everyday and never get indicted.
  • Which laws did Hillary Rodham Clinton wilfully break, and when?
  • What relevance does Wikileaks offer from the captured e-mails?
  • Does this really constitute adequate evidence to bring prosecution to bear?
  • Why?
  • Be specific.
One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.