GoNyGoNyGo wrote:You guys crack me up. So easily manipulated.

Hard to believe, isn't it?

Out of Roger Stone's mouth, straight here to this thread.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:You guys crack me up. So easily manipulated.

Which side are you referring to?

Knickoftime wrote:Looks like we can add SNL to the global conspirators denying trump his rightful place as king of America.

LOL - I don't get this complaining by Trump and his followers. If he loses the election, their options are to say he legitimately lost or to say he didn't understand the power dynamics of the media, advertising, on the ground work, etc. as well as Hillary did. Either way, they're acknowledging he didn't do what he needed to in order to win.

Welpee wrote:Can I throw one more issue out there that's bugging me:

That fact that a candidate for president is publicly saying "he loves wikileaks" if VERY disturbing. Wikileaks is committing a crime (that's indisputable) hacking into people's emails and publicly revealing them. This is being done by a foreign entity. The founder/leader is pretty much on the run from several countries and is dodging his own rape allegation. And yet, Trump's campaign admits to having a "back channel" to Wikileaks. And people are OK with this? Basically Trump is saying he supports breaking the law as long as it benefits him and his campaign to be president. Not to mention the fact that a foreign entity is trying to impact our election should have everyone majorly concerned.

Remember when John McCain literally snatched the mic from a supporter for spouting off about Obama being a muslim or an arab or whatever nonsense she was spewing. That's what a real American does, regardless of whether it benefits him or not you do the right thing.

This is what a true candidate who is being "presidential" would say: "I denounce the whole premise behind what wikileaks is doing and I will not reference any of their leaks in my campaign and will instruct my surrogates speaking on my behalf to do the same." Trump is so ignorant that he doesn't even realize how much respect and support he may get from people who he is not reaching by doing something this honorable and mature.

Instead Trump is pretty much revealing what type of president he would be. If someone speaks out against him he'll authorize wikileaks type activity to keep his opponents in their place. He'll be totally fine breaking the law (or have others do it on his behalf) if he personally benefits. We CANNOT let his dude become president. For all of the Hillary corruption people want to site, is there ANY doubt Trump would be multiple times more corrupt?

no exaggeration: trump is a psychopath

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:KnickofTime - Regarding what laws Hillary has broken. I'll let a former justice department official answer that:
(Taken from: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

So, Hillary Clinton was convicted of one less crime than Al Capone. Not bad company.

These are laws that you *think* she has broken but the FBI has cleared her. You realize that in this country a court of law (not some internet poster) determines if an individual has broken the law, right?

She was cleared from the top (Comey) down. There are plenty in the FBI who are pissed regarding Hillary "getting off" (thus far).
And hence the Quid Quo Pro being talked about in the Senate.

And I don't know enough about the laws to really say what she has broken (not at that depth). Those laws being mentioned are from a prior justice department official - I'll trust his judgment until an investigation takes place.

And if she has nothing to hide, a deep and OPEN investigation is in everyones interests.

Am I mistaken or has investigation not already occurred.

Isn't what you really mean is you didn't like the outcome and just want another one until you get the result you desire?

Why do you trust this "prior justice deptsrtmrnt official's" and not comey's?

Note: none of those questions are about clinton's innocence or guilt.

They are about your motivations.

Again, just ask me a question, stop being a lawyer and putting words in my mouth. (bolded)

This is why there needs to be a "new" investigation, rather a real one.
New FBI files contain allegations of 'quid pro quo' in Clinton's emails http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/16/new-fbi-files-contain-allegations-quid-pro-quo-in-clintons-emails.html

Why do I not trust Comey? For starters:
1. "But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year."
2. "In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings." "HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. "
3. Look at the immunity grants (5?) from Comey to Hillaries aides. Wow.

Bonn1997 - The above relates to your question too. And regarding your question, Hillary's actions affect National Security, Trumps do not. If what Trump is accused of is true, it is sick, if what Hillary is accused of is true, well, the results can be scary and affect us all.

TheGame wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:KnickofTime - Regarding what laws Hillary has broken. I'll let a former justice department official answer that:
(Taken from: http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/21/eight-laws-hillary-clinton-could-be-indicted-for-breaking/)

1.) 18 U.S. Code § 793 – Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 U.S. Code § 798 – Disclosure of classified information

2.) U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material

3.) 18 U.S. Code § 2071(b) — Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

4.) 18 U.S. Code § 641 – Public money, property or records

5.) 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

6.) 18 U.S. Code § 1519 — Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in federal investigations

7.) 18 U.S. Code § 1031 — Fraud against the United States
18 U.S. Code § 1343 – Fraud by wire, radio or television
18 U.S. Code § 1346 — Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”
18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to defraud the United States

8.) 18 U.S. Code § 371 – Conspiracy to commit a federal offense

So, Hillary Clinton was convicted of one less crime than Al Capone. Not bad company.

These are laws that you *think* she has broken but the FBI has cleared her. You realize that in this country a court of law (not some internet poster) determines if an individual has broken the law, right?

She was cleared from the top (Comey) down. There are plenty in the FBI who are pissed regarding Hillary "getting off" (thus far).
And hence the Quid Quo Pro being talked about in the Senate.

And I don't know enough about the laws to really say what she has broken (not at that depth). Those laws being mentioned are from a prior justice department official - I'll trust his judgment until an investigation takes place.

And if she has nothing to hide, a deep and OPEN investigation is in everyones interests.

Am I mistaken or has investigation not already occurred.

Isn't what you really mean is you didn't like the outcome and just want another one until you get the result you desire?

Why do you trust this "prior justice deptsrtmrnt official's" and not comey's?

Note: none of those questions are about clinton's innocence or guilt.

They are about your motivations.

Again, just ask me a question, stop being a lawyer and putting words in my mouth. (bolded)

This is why there needs to be a "new" investigation, rather a real one.
New FBI files contain allegations of 'quid pro quo' in Clinton's emails http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/16/new-fbi-files-contain-allegations-quid-pro-quo-in-clintons-emails.html

Why do I not trust Comey? For starters:
1. "But Comey earned $6 million in one year alone from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin became a Clinton Foundation donor that very year."
2. "In 2013, Comey became a board member, a director, and a Financial System Vulnerabilities Committee member of the London bank HSBC Holdings." "HSBC Holdings and its various philanthropic branches routinely partner with the Clinton Foundation. "
3. Look at the immunity grants (5?) from Comey to Hillaries aides. Wow.

Bonn1997 - The above relates to your question too. And regarding your question, Hillary's actions affect National Security, Trumps do not. If what Trump is accused of is true, it is sick, if what Hillary is accused of is true, well, the results can be scary and affect us all.

Huh?? What has Clinton done that effects us all regarding her emails? I have not heard one report indicating that national security was in fact compromised by anything Clinton has allegedly done. While Trump actively encourages Wikileaks and Russia to interfere with our presidential election. How does that not effect our National Security? You have things backwards because you support Trump. If Clinton was supporting Russia hacking into GOP emails, you trump supporters would be going crazy talking about how she is weak and allowing foreign powers influence the country.

I am sure you will attack the writer and not the content of what is written.

Also someone claimed that no security secrets have been exposed - not true. In the leaks there is evidence of US assets abroad were mentioned by name. Some of what was said in speeches to wall street, are considered to be National Security leaks also. BTW you all know that BO emailed HRC to the same account right? Perhaps that is the reason, everything is being swept under the rug? IT goes up the highest level.

If Wikileaks was dumping on DJT most of you would be all for it.

What about CNN saying it is illegal for people to read them??!!! Only journalists can! Ha! This is because the truth is getting out and they refuse to even report on it. False claims and words are talked about non-stop. This is all intended to mislead the masses and it is working.

Before you attack me for being for DJT, let's be clear that I am not. I am against the corruption of all kinds and the abuse of power that is going on and being exposed.

Those following the idiocy of Trump are being misled purposely. Don't take your eyes off the ball.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/article108682032.html

I am sure you will attack the writer and not the content of what is written.

Also someone claimed that no security secrets have been exposed - not true. In the leaks there is evidence of US assets abroad were mentioned by name. Some of what was said in speeches to wall street, are considered to be National Security leaks also. BTW you all know that BO emailed HRC to the same account right? Perhaps that is the reason, everything is being swept under the rug? IT goes up the highest level.

If Wikileaks was dumping on DJT most of you would be all for it.

What about CNN saying it is illegal for people to read them??!!! Only journalists can! Ha! This is because the truth is getting out and they refuse to even report on it. False claims and words are talked about non-stop. This is all intended to mislead the masses and it is working.

Before you attack me for being for DJT, let's be clear that I am not. I am against the corruption of all kinds and the abuse of power that is going on and being exposed.

Those following the idiocy of Trump are being misled purposely. Don't take your eyes off the ball.

The media manipulation is very high. Now they want to control what we can see and read. We need to start to include the media in the checks and balance dept. it's obvious it has become the other branch of the government.

I'm at the point where the debate needs to be shown, and thank you for watching the debate end right there with no two cents thrown in by anyone. Let the public formulate an opinion.

earthmansurfer wrote:This is why there needs to be a "new" investigation, rather a real one.
New FBI files contain allegations of 'quid pro quo' in Clinton's emails http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/16/new-fbi-files-contain-allegations-quid-pro-quo-in-clintons-emails.html

Okay. I'll ask you couple of a questions.

Having read your link, let me make sure I understand it. Based on these allegations the FBI and the DoJ both deny (and Congress can hold hearings on if they like), isn't what your asking for is an investigation of the FBI who handled the investigation of Clinton's emails and NOT a reinvestigation of Clinton's emails.

Again, for sake of trying to properly understand the point you're attempting to make. Aren't you suggesting an independent investigation of the FBI and IF grounds of impropriety are found, that might lead to grounds to reinvestigate the emails?

Do I have that chain of events correct?

You are not suggesting these uninvestigated allegations should directly result in a reopening of investigation into the Clintons emails, are you?

That isn't how our justice system works, again, if I understand whatever it is you seem to be suggesting correctly, though I'm not sure that I do.

Please correct any errors I've made.