I am always interested by this stance.
Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State made decisions based on information that you do not have, because it is secret. Some of those decisions may have had bad consequences but there’s no way for you to evaluate whether there was a risk of worse consequences because those risks were secret. And many of those decisions eliminated a risk of a problem, so that you never knew about the successful decision.
Yet you believe that you are qualified to determine that this woman did a bad job based literally on you not knowing what she did at her job.
It’s almost as if someone told you to believe that and you did without even questioning if you or they have the expertise to have an informed opinion on the topic. But more than that, you have a more informed opinion on the topic even than Clinton herself! That’s very impressive.
And by impressive, what I mean is, you wanted to believe it so you did. You started biased. Someone’s rhetoric confirmed your bias. You declare your bias reasonable and the rhetoric factual even though you would have to actually be omniscient in order to know what you would need to know to prove your point.
So what is it that you have against the woman, eh?