Last night, I finally sat down to do some research into Hillary's alleged corruption. I just wrote it off as convoluted smear tactics and solely based off inductive reasoning, giving it little to no weight (since you can prove virtually anything with just inductive reasoning.)
The result? Whilst there's still no hard evidence, it's VERY hard to defend Hillary after looking into it further. Basically, it appears that the Clinton Foundation (a charity for improving living conditions globally) has been the source of some very wealthy investments from places like Russia, China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. She then positioned that funding into her presidential campaign. Normally, this would be highly illegal, but because there is zero transparency for charity donations in the US, it is impossible to say for certain whether she did this, although the signs clearly point to yes given the exponential growth the Clinton Foundation has received and the fact that Hillary refuses to declare what attributed this growth.
Hillary Clinton has quite literally created a situation whereby nobody can look into her affairs, even though she's now a Presidential candidate, and was formerly a paid officer of the US government, and her family's running "a charity".
I'm just glad I don't get a vote on this shit-show, being a Briton. Voting for someone like Hillary would kill me, voting Republican would kill me. I could just slap a vote on a third-party, but there's zero point seeing as it's winner-takes-all, unlike the British elections.
I do agree with deanerandterry though, with regards to a myriad of politicians being proven liars, so Hillary should be given more lenience, but the fact that the Clinton Foundation scandal is so colossal makes it very hard to defend. There's a difference between a politician lying, and a politician breaking the law.