Bonn1997 wrote:

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.

There's no such thing as a human without a viewpoint (or "bias") or power without bias. What country are you going to live in if you want an "unbiased" media?! In any country, you get to the top by understanding and utilizing the power dynamics better than your opponents do. Hillary will most likely be the one to achieve that this time.

Welcome, because we are there now, and apparently you are ok, with that.

earthmansurfer wrote:When the president is acting Quid Quo Pro with the head of the FBI, when sensitive emails are stored on relatively open personal email servers (which is illegal), when there is collusion between the Clinton foundation and States funding terror, when Hillary at times can't even walk straight - is falling over and has questions about her health, and on and on, does it really need to be posted again - yeah, that is against national security.

See, this is when you guys do your side more harm than good.

If become difficult not to question your motivations, and your ability to reason when you throw that last part into the mix... it just stains the rest because it is so ludicrous ... and ... irrelevant ... and conspiratorial ... and sexist.

I don't see how questioning the health of a candidate for President is sexist especially when said candidate HAS had SEVERAL health issues over the past 7 years and was caugh on video, in fact, falling over.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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.

There's no such thing as a human without a viewpoint (or "bias") or power without bias. What country are you going to live in if you want an "unbiased" media?! In any country, you get to the top by understanding and utilizing the power dynamics better than your opponents do. Hillary will most likely be the one to achieve that this time.

I agree that everyone has a personal bias. As a member of the the "free" press you are supposed to be objective and be a watchdog of the govt no matter who is corrupt. If we don't have that, we are no better than a banana republic.

Welcome, because we are there now, and apparently you are ok, with that.

Again, the 1st amendment makes so such requirement of the press.

Given how sacrosanct certain people are about the 2nd amendment, I'm surprised at how casual people are about expressing dissatisfaction with the 1st.

What you are identifying isn't that there parties playing the role YOU want them to, but that ALL parties don't play the one role YOU want them to, or scarier, that they are allowed to.

Yes, the NY Times has an editorial bias. As does MSNBC, as does Fox News and Breitbart and Drudge and the Huffington Post.

But what is the solution to the fact there isn't some monolithic entity that plays this unbias role YOUR in bias opinion?

The founding father's were smart enough to know is none.

BTW, I hate that any personal property was damaged, any fireman had to expose himself to any form of risk, and of course nobody was hurt.

Democrats chain themselves to trees, not firebomb.

My take is the HB2 Issue is more the target than the presidential election.
Natrually Trump would think its about him.

https://www.ft.com/content/7dc39954-940e-11e6-a1dc-bdf38d484582

Trump son-in-law makes approach on post-election TV start-up

Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner has informally approached one of the media industry’s top dealmakers about the prospect of setting up a Trump television network after the presidential election in November.

Mr Kushner — an increasingly influential figure in the billionaire’s presidential campaign — contacted Aryeh Bourkoff, the founder and chief executive of LionTree, a boutique investment bank, within the past couple of months, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

Their conversation was brief and has not progressed since, the people said. Mr Bourkoff and Mr Kushner both declined to comment.

However, the approach suggests Mr Kushner and the Republican candidate himself are thinking about how to capitalise on the populist movement that has sprung up around their campaign in the event of an election defeat to Democrat Hillary Clinton next month. Mr Trump has in recent days ramped up his criticism of the “dishonest and distorted” mainstream media, which he accuses of being biased against him in collusion with the Clinton campaign.

In an NBC News/Wall Street Journal opinion poll, published this weekend, Mr Trump trailed Mrs Clinton by 11 points nationally.

Mr Trump, whose campaign is headed by populist digital media entrepreneur Stephen Bannon, has denied that he wants to start his own channel. “I have no interest in a media company. False rumour,” he told the Washington Post last month, following a Vanity Fair report that he and his advisers had explored the idea.

Mr Bourkoff, who launched LionTree in 2012, has advised on transactions worth more than $300bn, including Liberty Global’s $23.3bn acquisition of Virgin Media and Verizon’s $4.4bn takeover of AOL. He is also John Malone’s favoured adviser and helped the so-called “Cable Cowboy” consolidate the US pay-TV industry — in deals that culminated in Charter Communications’ $78bn takeover of Time Warner Cable this year.

More importantly, Mr Bourkoff is a friend of Mr Kushner, who is married to Mr Trump’s daughter Ivanka. The two have worked together in the past: Mr Bourkoff advised Mr Kushner, who also owns the weekly New York Observer newspaper, when he tried to buy the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team four years ago.

Establishing a Trump television network would be difficult, even with a potentially large audience for its programming.

Cable and satellite companies are loath to take on extra channels in an era of shrinking audiences and “cord-cutting” — the cancellation of pricey pay-TV subscriptions in favour of cheaper, online alternatives. An “over the top” digital service would be one possibility but still costly because Mr Trump and Mr Kushner would need to spend heavily on marketing, talent and technology.

Roger Ailes, the former head of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News Channel, is a friend of Mr Trump’s but would be prohibited from working on a Trump television venture by the terms of his exit agreement with the news network. He parted company with Fox this summer following an independent investigation into claims he sexually harassed Gretchen Carlson, a former Fox News presenter.

However, Sean Hannity, Mr Trump’s biggest cheerleader on Fox News, would be free to work for a prospective Trump network. Mr Hannity was among several Fox stars, including Bill O’Reilly, with clauses in their contracts allowing them to leave if Mr Ailes did.

Talk about a Trump network has persisted, partly because of the fervent crowds that Mr Trump continues to attract on the campaign trail and his existing links to conservative media. Mr Bannon, the chairman of Breitbart, a network of rightwing news sites, was hired in August to run the Trump campaign. Breitbart is currently on a global expansion push, with the aim of adding sites in Germany and France to its existing operations in the US and Israel.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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.

There's no such thing as a human without a viewpoint (or "bias") or power without bias. What country are you going to live in if you want an "unbiased" media?! In any country, you get to the top by understanding and utilizing the power dynamics better than your opponents do. Hillary will most likely be the one to achieve that this time.

I agree that everyone has a personal bias. As a member of the the "free" press you are supposed to be objective and be a watchdog of the govt no matter who is corrupt. If we don't have that, we are no better than a banana republic.

Welcome, because we are there now, and apparently you are ok, with that.

Again, the 1st amendment makes so such requirement of the press.

Given how sacrosanct certain people are about the 2nd amendment, I'm surprised at how casual people are about expressing dissatisfaction with the 1st.

What you are identifying isn't that there parties playing the role YOU want them to, but that ALL parties don't play the one role YOU want them to, or scarier, that they are allowed to.

Yes, the NY Times has an editorial bias. As does MSNBC, as does Fox News and Breitbart and Drudge and the Huffington Post.

But what is the solution to the fact there isn't some monolithic entity that plays this unbias role YOUR in bias opinion?

The founding father's were smart enough to know is none.

Exactly. There are media options for almost anyone with any viewpoint. It sounds like GoNY and others complaining are just upset that so many people are drawn to outlets that they don't like, but people should be allowed to pick whatever media outlets they want to watch or read.

Since you keep bring up the 1st amendment, here it is:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You are entitled to get your news from whoever you like, and they have a right to tell you whatever they want. You also have a right to be as close-minded and ignorant as you won't know you'll be.

Knickoftime wrote:

Vmart wrote:

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.

This sounds an awful lot to me like someone dissatisfied with the 1st amendment and wants to see it amended.

Yes/no?

How, when and what's reported all have a direct impact on votes... Imposing (improved) contribution limits by anyone connected to media outlets would be a step in the right direction.

Removes or at the very least, curbs the idea that high dollar donors have an unfair advantage in terms of media coverage.

gr33d wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

Vmart wrote:

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.

This sounds an awful lot to me like someone dissatisfied with the 1st amendment and wants to see it amended.

Yes/no?

How, when and what's reported all have a direct impact on votes... Imposing (improved) contribution limits by anyone connected to media outlets would be a step in the right direction.

Removes or at the very least, curbs the idea that high dollar donors have an unfair advantage in terms of media coverage.

As someone who believes Citizen's United should be overturned and endorses comprehensive campaign finance reform, I can get on board with that.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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.

There's no such thing as a human without a viewpoint (or "bias") or power without bias. What country are you going to live in if you want an "unbiased" media?! In any country, you get to the top by understanding and utilizing the power dynamics better than your opponents do. Hillary will most likely be the one to achieve that this time.

I agree that everyone has a personal bias. As a member of the the "free" press you are supposed to be objective and be a watchdog of the govt no matter who is corrupt. If we don't have that, we are no better than a banana republic.

Welcome, because we are there now, and apparently you are ok, with that.

Again, the 1st amendment makes so such requirement of the press.

Given how sacrosanct certain people are about the 2nd amendment, I'm surprised at how casual people are about expressing dissatisfaction with the 1st.

What you are identifying isn't that there parties playing the role YOU want them to, but that ALL parties don't play the one role YOU want them to, or scarier, that they are allowed to.

Yes, the NY Times has an editorial bias. As does MSNBC, as does Fox News and Breitbart and Drudge and the Huffington Post.

But what is the solution to the fact there isn't some monolithic entity that plays this unbias role YOUR in bias opinion?

The founding father's were smart enough to know is none.

Exactly. There are media options for almost anyone with any viewpoint. It sounds like GoNY and others complaining are just upset that so many people are drawn to outlets that they don't like, but people should be allowed to pick whatever media outlets they want to watch or read.

Since you keep bring up the 1st amendment, here it is:
Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You are entitled to get your news from whoever you like, and they have a right to tell you whatever they want. You also have a right to be as close-minded and ignorant as you won't know you'll be.

TheGame wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

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.

When the president is acting Quid Quo Pro with the head of the FBI, when sensitive emails are stored on relatively open personal email servers (which is illegal), when there is collusion between the Clinton foundation and States funding terror, when Hillary at times can't even walk straight - is falling over and has questions about her health, and on and on, does it really need to be posted again - yeah, that is against national security.

We need an open government, we don't need a closed "if you got nothing to hide" one that spies on its own people. We need a government to work with Russia as Kennedy was trying to do before they killed him, not one to bomb them and the middle east. And again, a good hacker can hide their tracks or set up others (within reason), you have zero evidence outside of Hillary and Obama saying it was Russia, lol. I'll trust the experts there.

Regarding National Security, in an experts own words (snippet):

Hillary Clinton’s decision to set up a private email server in her home while she was secretary of state has raised many questions, including why the government allowed it, what was in the emails and whether or not they ever will be seen by the public.

But as she appears ready to launch a campaign for the presidency, a key question emerges: How did her actions affect national security?

“I talked to security experts at Kaspersky Lab about how Clinton made herself vulnerable to hackers by exclusively using a homebrew email system, and their answer was basically, how didn’t she make herself vulnerable,” reported Adam Clark Estes, a senior writer for the tech-oriented website Gizmodo.

“The main problem is that Clinton [failed to secure] her private email server — and endangered national security as a result,” Estes wrote.

He quoted researcher Patrick Nielsen.

“From a technical perspective, a cabinet member using a homemade solution means adding an array of technologies and middlemen through whom the United States government can effectively be severely compromised,” Nielson said.

Estes explained that means “a hacker could effectively snoop on U.S. government mail without directly hacking U.S. government servers.”

And he noted “clintonemail.com” is owned by a Florida company, Perfect Privacy LLC, and registered to another company, Network Solutions, which introduces “just two third parties in a long line of private companies involved in Clinton sending an email to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, or whomever.”

Then there are the server companies.

“Each of these companies are potential targets that could give a hacker access to the secretary of state’s email system, again without directly attacking the U.S. government.”

As WND reported Thursday, video has been unearthed of the then-first lady declaring at a 2000 fundraiser for her senatorial campaign that she didn’t “do email” because of the many investigations targeting her and her husband.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said there are two potential legal pitfalls for Clinton.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/hillary-clintons-emails-endangered-national-security/#XDZiW96ESqDy0hSK.99

Again, you are only talking about POTENTIAL harm. There is no evidence of any actual harm from anything she did. She admitted it was improper. Move on. What I want to talk about is actual policies that these two candidates are going to implement. Please explain to me how Trump's plan to cut taxes on the wealthy is going to benefit America. Please explain Trump's economic policy in general and his plan for this country, beyond "I will do a better job" or "I will get the best people on it."