TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:

TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:Where's Hillary? Now we know. Having sex trysts with married men and women, smearing Bill's "problem" women, hiring hit men, covering up his hookers. Do you think the main stream media will report it?

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/

Lol. The national enquirer is influencing your decision making. Grow up and become an informed voter on the issues that matter and not a bunch of b.s.

No you're listening to the NY Times which gave Hillary veto power over their stories, Politico, where a reporter sent his story to Podesta for approval and called himself a "hack", and CNN which gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time. Plus People magazine too!

Reub, without talking about Hillary, please explain why you are voting for Trump. What is his economic plan? How exactly is he going to create jobs? He has no plan but I want to give you a chance to defend your position without talking about Hillary.

He's not Hillary. That's the main thing. Everything else like lowering taxes, securing our borders, stopping refugees from terror areas, appointing Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Constitution, repatriating trillions of dollars of overseas funds, removing the vast waste of govt, creating jobs. rebuilding our military, destroying ISIS instead of calling them the "JV" team, protecting the 2nd Amendment is just gravy.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:HOW am i supposed to know what the classifed document says, ITS CLASSIFIED!!!! THat is a nice attempt at steering away from what we are talking about btw.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_Email_1_296/HRCH3/DOC_0C05739808/C05739808.pdf

This is it.

I am taking the FBI at its word, these are there documents! THey say nothing happened, they did not re-classify and nothing was given in exchange. That does not change that Kennedy wanted it changed and buried.

No, you are not. You're taking the 1/2 of the conflicting FBI account that appeals to you the most.

At issue are somewhat contradictory interview notes contained in the crop of newly released FBI documents. In one, an FBI official recounted hearing second-hand that the State Department had offered a "quid pro quo" in exchange for declassifying an email. In another, a different FBI official said he told State Department he'd look into the email, if State Department looked into his request for personnel in Iraq.

The newly released documents contain a summary of interview notes related to the FBI's investigation into whether classified information was improperly handled while Clinton was secretary of state.

But another interview contained in the same collection said that though Kennedy reached out to FBI about declassifying the email, it was the FBI that brought up getting agents stationed in Iraq.

That is the supposed document that he supposedly called about? Where is the link confirming that?

Where is the link confirming it?? It's all over the place. That's the email. I'm not spending time disputing this fact with you.

Its becoming clearer you don't even understand why Kennedy was asking for it's classification to be changed.

You seem to think it was to make sure the contents of the email never saw the public light of day.

It was not.

It is right now on the State department (I incorrectly said the DoJ previously, my error) website.

LOL. I said that the FBI in their statement denied the quid pro quo. IF not, it would look bad because it apparently did come from the agent after he was approached to changed the classification. THis is the part of the FBI document what I am using:

Okay, so even if accurate (which is in dispute by state and the FBI), this singular former FBI agent suggesting but not receiving a quid pro quo that occurred two year after she left State implicates Hillary Clinton how?

Any comments on the new Veritas tapes from yesterday and today. They are much more intersting. Harder to refute I would imagine. But be my guest, give it a try.

I think this Foval guy should be interrogated by the FBI to see if he can substantiate his claims of direct coordination with the Clinton campaign for acts he claims responsibility for, which if occurred at any level, are horrendous, undemocratic and should never happen.

Last one from me on this.

It is proof that classified docs were received by her on her server.

Correct me if I'm in error, but hasn't this been established already? The bombshell new revelation that Trump likened to be greater than Watergate and described by HIM as being about quid pro quo is corroboration of what we already knew and what the FBI has already admonished for and was baked into the election before the primaries even started?

I get it. If you think the email server disqualifies her this is simply a new indirect reminder of that.

But that is NOT the way it was being sold yesterday by Trump or you. The goalposts on why this is significant and worth attention has been moved.

As such, it has not received a great deal of attention. Not because of the corrupt MSN, but because there is just no there there. The supposed new revelation was at best a misrepresentation and at worst a mischaracterization, which reasonable people told you 24 hours ago.

I think it fairly stands as evidence of the desperation of anti-Clinton people and the ability of people to filter out the full story to focus in on and interpret things through their subjective lense.

In other words, that entire story was pitched (Watergate, really?) because of an agenda and accepted because of confirmation bias.

Veritas -

I can agree with you on that. Add Bob Craemer and a few others. Outright voter fraud. It will be tough to pin it on the higher ups, they have the "double blind" in place. They hide in plain sight behind their SuperPAC's.

As is the accusation. You seem at least informed enough to know Project Veritas has come under scrutiny in the past for their methods and that can't be dismissed from this equation.

I also think you'd be naive to believe the politics of dirty tricks is somehow exclusive to one party. But that all said, I think any case that surfaces must be investigated on the same grounds anything else is investigated - if enough evidence or testimony emerges warranting one. And if illegal activity is involved, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as high up the chain as it goes.

If no illegal but just improper activity takes place, any party involved including the Democratic one should police themselves strictly, which appears to have already happened to some degree here.

But no, I'm not going to defend, dismiss or rationalize what's been accused of here as anything but unAmerican and completely unacceptable.

reub wrote:

TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:

TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:Where's Hillary? Now we know. Having sex trysts with married men and women, smearing Bill's "problem" women, hiring hit men, covering up his hookers. Do you think the main stream media will report it?

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/

Lol. The national enquirer is influencing your decision making. Grow up and become an informed voter on the issues that matter and not a bunch of b.s.

No you're listening to the NY Times which gave Hillary veto power over their stories, Politico, where a reporter sent his story to Podesta for approval and called himself a "hack", and CNN which gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time. Plus People magazine too!

Reub, without talking about Hillary, please explain why you are voting for Trump. What is his economic plan? How exactly is he going to create jobs? He has no plan but I want to give you a chance to defend your position without talking about Hillary.

He's not Hillary. That's the main thing. Everything else like lowering taxes, securing our borders, stopping refugees from terror areas, appointing Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Constitution, repatriating trillions of dollars of overseas funds, removing the vast waste of govt, creating jobs. rebuilding our military, destroying ISIS instead of calling them the "JV" team, protecting the 2nd Amendment is just gravy.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-obsessed-with-revenge

reub wrote:

TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:

TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:Where's Hillary? Now we know. Having sex trysts with married men and women, smearing Bill's "problem" women, hiring hit men, covering up his hookers. Do you think the main stream media will report it?

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/

Lol. The national enquirer is influencing your decision making. Grow up and become an informed voter on the issues that matter and not a bunch of b.s.

No you're listening to the NY Times which gave Hillary veto power over their stories, Politico, where a reporter sent his story to Podesta for approval and called himself a "hack", and CNN which gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time. Plus People magazine too!

Reub, without talking about Hillary, please explain why you are voting for Trump. What is his economic plan? How exactly is he going to create jobs? He has no plan but I want to give you a chance to defend your position without talking about Hillary.

He's not Hillary. That's the main thing. Everything else like lowering taxes, securing our borders, stopping refugees from terror areas, appointing Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Constitution, repatriating trillions of dollars of overseas funds, removing the vast waste of govt, creating jobs. rebuilding our military, destroying ISIS instead of calling them the "JV" team, protecting the 2nd Amendment is just gravy.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:HOW am i supposed to know what the classifed document says, ITS CLASSIFIED!!!! THat is a nice attempt at steering away from what we are talking about btw.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRC_Email_1_296/HRCH3/DOC_0C05739808/C05739808.pdf

This is it.

I am taking the FBI at its word, these are there documents! THey say nothing happened, they did not re-classify and nothing was given in exchange. That does not change that Kennedy wanted it changed and buried.

No, you are not. You're taking the 1/2 of the conflicting FBI account that appeals to you the most.

At issue are somewhat contradictory interview notes contained in the crop of newly released FBI documents. In one, an FBI official recounted hearing second-hand that the State Department had offered a "quid pro quo" in exchange for declassifying an email. In another, a different FBI official said he told State Department he'd look into the email, if State Department looked into his request for personnel in Iraq.

The newly released documents contain a summary of interview notes related to the FBI's investigation into whether classified information was improperly handled while Clinton was secretary of state.

But another interview contained in the same collection said that though Kennedy reached out to FBI about declassifying the email, it was the FBI that brought up getting agents stationed in Iraq.

That is the supposed document that he supposedly called about? Where is the link confirming that?

Where is the link confirming it?? It's all over the place. That's the email. I'm not spending time disputing this fact with you.

Its becoming clearer you don't even understand why Kennedy was asking for it's classification to be changed.

You seem to think it was to make sure the contents of the email never saw the public light of day.

It was not.

It is right now on the State department (I incorrectly said the DoJ previously, my error) website.

LOL. I said that the FBI in their statement denied the quid pro quo. IF not, it would look bad because it apparently did come from the agent after he was approached to changed the classification. THis is the part of the FBI document what I am using:

Okay, so even if accurate (which is in dispute by state and the FBI), this singular former FBI agent suggesting but not receiving a quid pro quo that occurred two year after she left State implicates Hillary Clinton how?

Any comments on the new Veritas tapes from yesterday and today. They are much more intersting. Harder to refute I would imagine. But be my guest, give it a try.

I think this Foval guy should be interrogated by the FBI to see if he can substantiate his claims of direct coordination with the Clinton campaign for acts he claims responsibility for, which if occurred at any level, are horrendous, undemocratic and should never happen.

Last one from me on this.

It is proof that classified docs were received by her on her server.

Correct me if I'm in error, but hasn't this been established already? The bombshell new revelation that Trump likened to be greater than Watergate and described by HIM as being about quid pro quo is corroboration of what we already knew and what the FBI has already admonished for and was baked into the election before the primaries even started?

I get it. If you think the email server disqualifies her this is simply a new indirect reminder of that.

But that is NOT the way it was being sold yesterday by Trump or you. The goalposts on why this is significant and worth attention has been moved.

As such, it has not received a great deal of attention. Not because of the corrupt MSN, but because there is just no there there. The supposed new revelation was at best a misrepresentation and at worst a mischaracterization, which reasonable people told you 24 hours ago.

I think it fairly stands as evidence of the desperation of anti-Clinton people and the ability of people to filter out the full story to focus in on and interpret things through their subjective lense.

In other words, that entire story was pitched (Watergate, really?) because of an agenda and accepted because of confirmation bias.

Veritas -

I can agree with you on that. Add Bob Craemer and a few others. Outright voter fraud. It will be tough to pin it on the higher ups, they have the "double blind" in place. They hide in plain sight behind their SuperPAC's.

As is the accusation. You seem at least informed enough to know Project Veritas has come under scrutiny in the past for their methods and that can't be dismissed from this equation.

I also think you'd be naive to believe the politics of dirty tricks is somehow exclusive to one party. But that all said, I think any case that surfaces must be investigated on the same grounds anything else is investigated - if enough evidence or testimony emerges warranting one. And if illegal activity is involved, it should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as high up the chain as it goes.

If no illegal but just improper activity takes place, any party involved including the Democratic one should police themselves strictly, which appears to have already happened to some degree here.

But no, I'm not going to defend, dismiss or rationalize what's been accused of here as anything but unAmerican and completely unacceptable.

Yes, he has been sued and also arrested for intent to commit a felony in a federal building. He was trying to expose Landrieu. He exposed Acorn and planned parenthood too. For sure he is agenda driven. That being said, it does not excuse what is being exposed.

He has been scrutinized as well for how he edits his videos. I'll assume you're also aware of this.

I get that among the more fervored conspiratists (to invent two words) Fox news is in on the fix too, but it does say something when Fox is distancing themselves from this.

And I have not excused it under any terms.

As to the other thing, it establishes an attempt to influence whether a bribe was offered or not or accepted or not.
The FOIA docs were already under subpoena and while it is correct that classifications are changed after the fact, subpoena'd docs are not re-classified. What Kennedy was asking for was illegal and that is why the agent denied it even if he could have gotten a favor back. The agent acted right.

Again, correct me if i'm mistaken, but doesn't the FBI disagree with you about it's illegality. I'm really asking.

As to her involvement, are we really to believe that she and Kennedy did not discuss this at all esp since it had to with Benghazi where the State Dept was under fire and they were both brought into question? Apparently you do. I don't.

I don't "believe" anything. That's the difference here. I am not making intuitive leaps of "belief" based on my internal bias.

I am regarding the story for what it is. Clinton's involvement or lack thereof is purely a matter of speculation. That facts are she wasn't in the state department for 2 years when this occurred. What you want to do with that fact is matter of your choosing, and I don't think even you'd deny what your preconditioned leaning is.

If facts or even evidence emerges she was directly involved in some way, that will be worth due consideration.

That said, I'll gladly acknowledge my own bias.

The efforts to paint Hillary Clinton as a Bond villain - that this ex-Senator/SoS somehow sits at the head of a global star chamber of international bankers (and who apparently has only amassed her power SINCE losing to the African-American first term Senator named Barack Hussain Obama in the 2008 primary) and who controls the media including Fox News with an iron fist just discredits those who try to push that agenda, as it should for anyone with even limited intelligence.

reub wrote:

TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:

TheGame wrote:

reub wrote:Where's Hillary? Now we know. Having sex trysts with married men and women, smearing Bill's "problem" women, hiring hit men, covering up his hookers. Do you think the main stream media will report it?

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/

Lol. The national enquirer is influencing your decision making. Grow up and become an informed voter on the issues that matter and not a bunch of b.s.

No you're listening to the NY Times which gave Hillary veto power over their stories, Politico, where a reporter sent his story to Podesta for approval and called himself a "hack", and CNN which gave Hillary debate questions ahead of time. Plus People magazine too!

Reub, without talking about Hillary, please explain why you are voting for Trump. What is his economic plan? How exactly is he going to create jobs? He has no plan but I want to give you a chance to defend your position without talking about Hillary.

He's not Hillary. That's the main thing. Everything else like lowering taxes, securing our borders, stopping refugees from terror areas, appointing Supreme Court justices who will uphold the Constitution, repatriating trillions of dollars of overseas funds, removing the vast waste of govt, creating jobs. rebuilding our military, destroying ISIS instead of calling them the "JV" team, protecting the 2nd Amendment is just gravy.

Your are just repeating talking points. How is lowering taxes on the rich going to help the country when we have a budget deficit and mounting debt? Also, why do you trust Trump to be president when he has shown that he is totally reactionary and unwilling to follow the advice? Just look at his campaign and how much self-inflicted damage he has done. If the guy is that much out of control as a candidate how much more out of control do you think he is going to be as president. But this is the person you want in control of the most powerful military on the planet. Someone who can be tricked into a fight through a simple insult. Russia and China must be licking their lips at a Trump presidency. Why do you think Russia is having Wikileaks distribute info on Clinton.

Knickoftime wrote:This phenomena of Trump saying these perfectly clearly about the legitimacy of the election at this rallies and Twitter and his campaign surrogates saying the exact opposite is one of the weirdest parts of this election.

Pence, Conway, now Ivanka are saying he will accept the outcome, but as late as last night be was saying the opposite in no uncertain terms.

More dangerous is his BS about voter fraud, the racist coding he is always using.

Putting Palin on a GOP ticket opened the door a crack...and Trump's nomination finished the process. GOP is F'd up, and Trump is doing his best to keep it f'd up for the next 10 years.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Must read:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-obsessed-with-revenge

I think questioning of DJT's character are fair and based on the examples used in this MOther JOnes article, I concur that his seemingly fly off the handle reactions make him unfit to be POTUS.

Like I have been saying, we have two awful options to choose from.

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:Must read:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-obsessed-with-revenge

I think questioning of DJT's character are fair and based on the examples used in this MOther JOnes article, I concur that his seemingly fly off the handle reactions make him unfit to be POTUS.

Like I have been saying, we have two awful options to choose from.

I think people are really exaggerate Hillary's negative qualities. Just today my colleague said he hates Hillary and wished Collin Powell had run. Seriously?! Hillary had an e-mail server that might have in theory but not in reality actually harmed human lives. Collin Powell lying or misleading about WMD lead to a war that cost thousands of lives. And yet Powell has an 85% approval rating? It's not really Hillary's actions that people disapprove of. That's just an excuse. People overlook much worse behavior from other political figures. She just doesn't have the same superficial charm that more popular politicians have. (And in all fairness, it is hard for a woman to come across as charming and still be taken seriously.)

Bonnie, 100% agree. Well said.