BS: Hillary's emails again, and again,...

Subject: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 04:04 PM

Can anyone representing a liberal viewpoint comment on the points brought up here, without attacking either the poster or the writer of this article?

It would be an interesting change, and a welcome one.



.........................................................

"By William McGurn, The Wall Street Journal

Here are four words this columnist never thought he would type: Hillary Clinton is right.

Mrs. Clinton is right, at least, to this extent: When an FBI director links a presidential candidate to a criminal investigation 11 days out from the election, he owes the American people more than a vague promise to get back to us down the road.

Mrs. Clinton has responded by calling on Mr. Comey to release the emails the bureau has discovered on a home computer used by her aide, Huma Abedin. She demands this only because she is confident it will never happen.

Certainly there exist many practical obstacles to releasing the emails uncovered, including the inadvertent disclosure of classified information. Nevertheless, as unlikely as release may be, the case for more public information has become crucial now that the Justice Department has indicated this Clinton investigation, like the one before it, will go nowhere.

How do we know this? Mr. Comey may speak of going forward. But the objections of Justice suggest that it will again ensure that any investigation will be hindered by a lack of search warrants and subpoenas—and that whatever the FBI may turn up will never be put before a grand jury.

Justice inadvertently gave us a sign of just how important these tools are in a press release earlier this month touting the guilty felony plea by retired Marine Gen. James Cartwright for lying to the FBI in connection with the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. In it, Justice boasts about using all the tools at its disposal to get the general, including "subpoenas, search warrants and document requests"—tools the FBI mostly lacked while investigating Mrs. Clinton.

A truly independent press corps might help here if it were not bent on validating Donald Trump's complaints about a rigged system."

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 04:17 PM

Beardie, There was plenty of comment and refutation of the previous outrageous bullshit you posted from right-wing lunatic sites (The American Spectaror??? Give us a frickin break!!!)and demented Clinton-persecuting individuals of two decades' history - which you disregarded out of hand because it didn't validate your usual fact-averse spew.

Unfortunately, that thread was terminated - for reasons known only to Trump - and I predict this one will also be, so get that vomit laid out here while you have a chance.

Trump - and by extension those who support him - are indeed PROVEN many times over despicable pieces of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 04:50 PM

Not a liberal, but from the sidelines, and certainly not a fan of Clinton , it does seem unfair to not substantiate and just leave suspicion hanging. But I have no idea if her challenge is based on her innocence in this respect, or whether she knows of some other reason why nothing further was said. Either way, surely , nothing ought to have been said about email investigations if they were not willing to produce anything of substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 05:02 PM

Would these be the emails that HC didn't send?

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 05:30 PM

Greg , this is me, cut it out. Not your POV but the profane nature of describing it. It doesn't change minds or promote any understanding of the truth. Facts may not matter this time around but they are your strongest hand. All UK contributors have the gift of expressing themselves under the umbrella USA free speech. Outrage is fine, outrageously insulting is not.

Emails- What Hillary did by Government rules and by-laws could have ended in dismissal at worst or a warning at least. It is not even close to criminal. After 25 years association with the Government I know his for a fact.

I believe Bill Clinton has vilified Hillary second only to Trump. Runway meeting...Obama Care diatribe...the famous cigar fetish.
At minimum, Bill only promoted himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 05:59 PM

Greg , this is me, cut it out. Not your POV but the profane nature of describing it.


Take it up with Beardie, Donuel- a small but by no means comprehensive sampling of his posts to whit:

"YOU saying that I called someone a "Dirty Ni**er""

"You are such a bigoted turd"

"I would NEVER shit you- YOU are my favorite turd."

Puh-Leeze

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 06:18 PM

There seem to be two streams of implications being foisted against Hillary Clinton vis-a-vis Email:

1) Illegal/ Traitorous release of confidential US information.
and
2) Secret/ Corrupt arrangements of Pay-To-Play by coordinating gifts to the Clinton Foundation to Government decisions/ actions via the State Department when Hillary was Secretary.

All I can say is that I've heard accusation after accusation without either coherent charges or anything other than blanket statements with no verification that can be substantiated. Much of the AM radio band in my town seems to be in an alternate universe based on the latest utterances of Donald J. Trump and wishful thinking uttered without filtration of probability or reality.

The first sentence in that last paragraph is supposed to be addressed by the F.B.I. Earlier this Summer they appeared to say there was no criminal case. Currently we are awaiting further developments.

Email is only Email. Covert ops and Corruption are also achieved by phone conversations, microdots, secret drops, and flinging coded messages over fences via shovel. . .

One does wonder where such vast counts of email messages come from. I was snowed by mere hundreds.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 06:32 PM

I imagine the reason the thread was terminated was because of the unpleasant tone and distasteful nature of the insults being thrown around. If people would conduct this discussion in a civil way I don't imagine the problem would occur again.

However I rather doubt if that will be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 07:02 PM

If I were a moderator on this board I would close this thread and suspend the person who started it for blatant contempt. But who am I. Not my bloody gig. Trollery personified.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 08:30 PM

Surely "trumpery"...
................

But if we avoid the inadequate toilet training vocabulary and express our differences, and our attitudes to others in civil terms there'd be no reason for this thread to be shut down prematurely.   

Studied contempt, if that's what's called for, is more effective than throwing toys out of our pram and squalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Nov 16 - 09:35 PM

Give over, Kevin. Yes, it's worth discussing, but yes, he's trolling. As unpromising a start to a thread as you could wish to have.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 01:17 AM

Agreed, Steve. He's trolling - by pissing in the wind. Hillary didn't break any laws, her email is a non-issue. After November 8, this is pure rhetoric seasoned with sour grapes, nothing more. And Kevin nailed it - when a thread reaches a point when the topic is no longer discussed and participants are calling each other names, it is time to close it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:11 AM

I think we all know WHY the thread was shut down Mr Mc Grath.

If it had remained a list of obscene insults about Mr Trump, it would have been gleefully encouraged.

Too much information was starting to appear.

I'm sorry about that but it has happened before, as they say we will have to "get used to it".

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 07:57 AM

No we don't " know why the thread was closed down", aken. But I doubt if it was anything to do with "too much information was starting to appear".

The posts had descended into an exchange of unpleasant exchanges of insults. It's perfectly possible to argue strongly without that - I can't ever recall you doing it for example.

I can't see how moderators can ever be reasonably accused of "gleefully encouraging anything".

And no we don't have to get used to individuals wilfully disrupting things by fouling the nest. It happens, it will happen again, but that doesn't mean accepting it. There used to be notices in buses asking people not to spit. You don't seem to see them these days, not because we've got used to the spitting, but because it's a lot less prevalent. It

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:09 AM

Donuel,
"Emails- What Hillary did by Government rules and by-laws could have ended in dismissal at worst or a warning at least. It is not even close to criminal. After 25 years association with the Government I know his for a fact."

By benefit of my 38 years as a government contractor, NSA training in classified information handling and procedures, AISSR and AltCOMSEC custodian position at the SECRET level, I have to disagree.

The actions stated by HRC could result in 10 years imprisonment or more, under a felony ruling. The additional points ( conspiracy to violate the FOIA where covered up by the DOJ, destruction of government documents under subpoena) have never even been addressed, although stated by HRC in her various speeches


GregtrF,

"
"YOU saying that I called someone a "Dirty Ni**er""

"You are such a bigoted turd"

"I would NEVER shit you- YOU are my favorite turd.""

ALL of which are factual and can be documented here on MUDCAT.

You seem to be saying the MUDCAT is all BS- even those parts that YOU have NOT posted.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:27 AM

BTW, Donuel

GregtrF can't help it- he is the self-appointed Liberal Viewpoint to represent YOU. He is just applying his normal means of debate- attack the person rather than discuss the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:32 AM

Whatever you say or wish for, the deliberate reopening of a closed topic by the chief perpetrator of the abuse that got it closed is extremely contemptuous of the moderators and is trolling personified. As you can imagine, the mods are not always my number one fans and I'm certainly not about to start sucking up to them now, but we should not be discussing those emails in this thread. Another time.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:42 AM

The topic was not a reason to close the thread- the postings of personnel attack by GregtrF certainly could have been, but ANY posts that support the majority viewpoint here are acceptable, while those that present a minority view are selectively removed, threads closed, and posters vilified.

As I said, in a factual post addressed to GregtrF,
""You are such a bigoted turd""

He makes personnel attacks rather than provide facts to support his viewpoint, and this has the full approval of the PTB, from all indications of removed postings and closed threads.

And this is what the Left considers discussion...

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 09:02 AM

Steve Shaw,

"On The Kelly File Wednesday night, host Megyn Kelly asked former NY mayor Rudy Giuliani why all this is coming out now.

"We're a couple of days out from the election. This would have been good to know a few weeks ago for the record," Kelly said.

"Because my former assistant Jim Comey made the wrong decision in July," Giuliani replied. "You have outraged FBI agents that talk to me. They're outraged at the injustice. They're outraged by being turned down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury. They are convinced that Loretta Lynch has corrupted the Justice Department. You've got people in the Justice Department involved in this investigation who were defense lawyers for Clinton people.... This is about as outrageous a corruption of the Justice Department that we've seen."

Giuliani said that the dissension within the FBI is very real.

"These are men and women who uphold the law. They're not a bunch of slimy Washington politicians like the Obama administration and the people Clinton would bring in. And the reality is that they are outraged with what they have seen," the former prosecutor said.
Sponsored

"Mrs. Clinton has violated easily 20 - 30 federal laws," he continued. "I could outline them for you, I could show you how I could prosecute and convict her."

Giuliani said that back in July when he read FBI Director Comey's prosecutorial memo about the email case, "it was just the opposite of what he said."

He continued, "Every reasonable prosecutor would have prosecuted that case in a second. I've won convictions on half the evidence that the FBI had gotten in July, and Jim has an FBI that's in revolt right now and I think that's one of the reasons he came out and did what he did to try to control his agents -- who after all are true law enforcement people. And what they see is some of the slimiest stuff that we've seen in Washington since probably Teapot Dome."

"This is worse that Watergate," Giuliani declared. "They've corrupted the State Department with 'pay to play' and they've corrupted the Justice Department. You can't go much further than that, Megyn."

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 10:22 AM

I too suspect that sometimes threads are closed down by mods because of things said that oppose their world views but when there is a lot of foul abuse , closure becomes understandable. As mentioned, one member in particular sole mode of argument is abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 10:30 AM

Oh dear. Serial postarrhoea. A symptom indicating that Bruce is definately off his meds again-

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 10:43 AM

And so much for the "Official Liberal Viewpoint"....

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 12:58 PM

+
First I apologize to Greg. For all I know Greg is an authentic like minded Russell Brand entitled to his own expression.

Social science experiments show that heckling the referee is effective in changing referee behavior in your favor.



Hillary got more than 1000 emails per day and less than 3000 emails per day.
My wife only gets about 1000 per day. This is after 22 personal settings and dept IT filters.

About Bill again. He did make one good speech but I left that out.
Omitting a fact is but one method of lying, intentional or not.


today Donald Trump explained Hillary's emails with special information no one else has ever heard before, with details unknown to
everyone else alive today. Could it be true? Anything is possible

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 01:03 PM

today Donald Trump explained Hillary's emails with special information no one else has ever heard before, with details unknown to
everyone else alive today.

Not true! Beardie has heard all about it and knows all about it. And I'm sure that Psychopath Giuliani has and does as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 01:10 PM

I think bruce should consider how far his own use of language and style of posting contributed to the reasonable decision to pull the plug on that thread.

I'd hesitate to take Giulini's word as evidence of anything except loyalty to Trump.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: robomatic
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:02 PM

BB: I thought I tried to express a 'liberal' view that was respectful and to the point.
I think if you sample more of Giuliani's language you will find a hard headed partisan and his opinions as such. In the conversation you cited with Kelly he didn't actually verbalize any crimes or prosecutorial procedure despite saying it would be 'easy'.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:16 PM

Robomatic,

Your post of 02 Nov 06:18 is certainly to the point and in a reasonable language.

The point is that the DOJ and this administration has kept the FBI from performing an adaquate investigation by limiting the search warrants and refusing a grand jury to allow the determination of the facts.

Are you implying that the preset head of the DOJ , or the President, is any LESS partisan than Giuliani, a former government official? If the DOJ blocks investigation, how much evidence CAN be obtained?

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:18 PM

"They're outraged by being turned down by the Justice Department to open a grand jury. They are convinced that Loretta Lynch has corrupted the Justice Department. You've got people in the Justice Department involved in this investigation who were defense lawyers for Clinton people.... This is about as outrageous a corruption of the Justice Department that we've seen."

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:49 PM

Are you implying that the preset head of the DOJ , or the President, is any LESS partisan than Giuliani

No "implication" at all. Its an established fact.

Giuliani is a lying sack of dirt, also an established fact. If you recall, Tailgunner Joe McCarthy was a "former government official" - as was Dick Nixon- also lying sacks both.

And no, Beardie, in the real world, the administration has not "kept the FBI from performing an adaquate investigation".

Rave on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 02:54 PM

"No "implication" at all. Its an established fact."

No, your statement is false.

"Giuliani is a lying sack of dirt, also an established fact. "

No, your statement is false

And no, Beardie, in the real world, the administration has not "kept the FBI from performing an adaquate investigation".

No, your statement is false.




I have examined ALL the evidence you have provided and determined that you are making false statements.

You have established yourself previously as a demonstrated liar. I have seen no evidence to indicate that you have changed.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 03:21 PM

I have examined ALL the evidence you have provided and determined that you are making false statements.

Well, ya see, Beardie, there's one of your problems. You haven't "examined" anything I've provided, you've dismissed it out of hand.

Lots of evidence has been provided by folks other than myself. You disregard that out of hand as well.

Lots of further evidence is available with minimal web searching. You refuse to educate yourself.

You prefer to take the accept the ravings of proven liars like Trump & Giuliani and of psychopaths like Alex Jones as fact.

That's not a "Conservative Viewpoint", Beardie. Its garbage.



Rave on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 03:40 PM

Wrong again. YOU provided NOTHING to support your statments- YOU HAD NO EVIDENCE.

Since you cannot bother to provide evidence, I cannot bother to accept that you have any idea of what the truth is.

Rave on yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 04:15 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_bQwBWqKjo

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 06:17 PM

Even if what Guliani was saying there was actually true, all it amounted ti was that some unknown individuals attached the FBI were shooting there mouth off about a disagreement Big deal.

Not exactly hard evidence. And of course that's quite a big "if".

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 06:21 PM

Here's some hard evidence:

Video shows Trump with mob figure he denied knowing
Michael Isikoff
Yahoo News
November 2, 2016

A newly uncovered video appears to contradict Donald Trump's claim that he never knew a high-stakes gambler who was banned from New Jersey casinos for alleged ties to organized crime.

The reputed mob figure, Robert LiButti, can be seen standing alongside Trump in the front row of a 1988 "WrestleMania" match in Atlantic City, N.J. LiButti wasn't there by accident, according to his daughter, Edith Creamer, who also attended the event. "We were his guests," she told Yahoo News in a text message this week.

The video appears to lend new support to assertions Trump once had close relations with LiButti, who was banned from the state's casinos in 1991 because of his ties to Mafia boss John Gotti, then the chief of the Gambino crime syndicate.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 07:49 PM

Trump is a liar.

And the pope is a Catholic.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:00 PM

Leave it, chaps. The topic is poisoned. Plenty else to focus on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 08:40 PM

Yeah, but is TRUMP catholic?

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Nov 16 - 11:06 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/politics/donald-trump-roy-cohn.html

http://www.advocate.com/election/2016/8/16/roy-cohn-and-donald-trump-mentor-and-protege

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-dinner-party-213923

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/04/488722392/village-voice-reporter-recalls-roy-cohns-early-influence-on-trump

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/former-mccarthy-aide-showed-trump-how-to-exploit-power-and-draw-attention/2016/06/16/e9f44f20-2bf3-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

So, since the only replies are attacks on Trump, I have to presume that there is NO defense of HRC' actions and demonstrated offenses.

I have NEVER stated that Trump was a decent human being- Just that HRC was worse. She was in a position of trust and violated it for her own (perceived) gain.

No postings here have given me any reason to think otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 10:05 AM

Rather, No postings here have given you any reason to think - particularly your own.

And these "demonstrated offenses" are? And demonstrated by whom? You, Trump Giuliani?

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 10:22 AM

GregtrF,

The admitted violations of the law that HRC stated she had done, and the reasons she stated for doing so.

I notice you STILL attack me, and provide no facts to support your viewpoint.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 11:12 AM

The admitted violations of the law that HRC stated she had done

Which are:??? And which law? And which court was she convicted in?

provide no facts to support your viewpoint

See above references by myself and others, whilst your "facts" come from the spew of Trump, Giuliani, Alex Jones and Michael Savage.

I notice you STILL attack me

I don't attack you, Beardie- you may be a wonderful person(??) I attack your willingness to re-broadcast the lies, misinformation & outright BS of others without bothering to question the source or the veracity.

You bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 11:40 AM

GregtrF,

HRC has stated:

That she used a private server for DOS messages in order to avoid the FOIA.

She stated, that she had destroyed emails that were under subpoena.

She stated that there were no classified material in the emails on her server, thus lying as it has been shown that there was.


One can violate the law without being convicted- when one is being protected by the administration and the DOJ. Al Capone was NEVER convicted of anything beyond tax evasion- and Nixon was never convicted of ANY crime at all.


You have yet to provide ANY facts to support your claims.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:09 PM

"Consider, for example, what we know about Hillary Clinton's e-mail scandal alone, and the skill it must take to avoid prison time for it. We know that Hillary Clinton's secret e-mail server was highly illegal because it processed and stored classified government information on an unsecure system. We know that much of this classified information originated with Clinton herself.

We know that she ordered at least one aide to break the law on her behalf by sending classified information over an unsecure system. We know she has lied repeatedly about transmitting classified information on her server, at press conferences and once, incredibly, under sworn testimony. We know that, although she insisted otherwise, Clinton deleted thousands of work-related e-mails. We know that one of her aides destroyed Clinton's mobile devices with a hammer, preventing a full forensic analysis of her e-mail usage. We know that Clinton has lied about the FBI's own assessment of her previous lies. And so forth.

Given this staggering level of criminal behavior, one might ask: how has Clinton been able to defend herself? The answer is: lying. For much more than a year Clinton has lied repeatedly and ceaselessly about her e-mail woes. She has lied about the classified information on the server, she has lied about her recordkeeping, she has lied about the very lies she has previously told, she has lied so frequently that it is entirely possible she has come to believe some of her own lies."

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:20 PM

So, since the only replies are attacks on Trump, I have to presume that there is NO defense of HRC' actions and demonstrated offenses.

No, there are no offenses and no one is idiotic enough to argue with you and your cock-eyed view of the world. It would be a total waste of our time.

We don't need to prove anything to you. You can read, you simply need to stop blocking the reputable news outlets and open your mind to the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:29 PM

You have yet to provide ANY facts to support your claims.

Nor have you! just the same old lies, distortions and outright BS.

That she used a private server

As did Colin Powell. Its not now and was not then "illegal".

it has been shown that there was [classified information].

It has been alleged, not proven.

when one is being protected by the administration and the DOJ

Another Alex Jones accusation/lie with no supporting evidence.

Nice screed by Dan Payne that you lifted direct "The Federalist" by the way, long on invective, short on fact (or absent thererof?).

Of course Payne's studies in English Literature & Italian at a third-rate university ( and bugger-all else) establish his credentials as an expert on the subjects he bloviates about, right?

Again, all you can do, Beardie, is regurgitate this blogosphere nonsense.

Pitiful, reallt.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:30 PM

Agreed, you don't need to prove anything to me. BUT when I look at the statements of HRC and see that she has admitted to the violations of the law that she has, you cannot tell me that I should vote for her either.
IF this was a nation of laws, and the DOJ treated her as if she was any other citizen of this country, she would not be eligible to run for president, or any other public office.


So maybe YOU should just open your mind to those "reputable news outlets" and do what they direct you to regardless of your conscience.

Go do what you are told.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 12:38 PM

GregtrF

Using a private server FOR THE STATED PURPOSE of avoiding the FOIA AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL is most certainly illegal.

The FBI has stated that there were classified emails on the server. FACT.

Subject: RE: BS: Hilary's emails again, and again,...
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Nov 16 - 01:11 PM

BB: No matter how much you ignore me you will not drive me to be rude (yet) but I responded twice and my only deficiency has been in being civil.

The PBS Show Frontline has done a very good show on both Hillary and Donald called "The Choice" and synopsizes major parts of their careers very well.

As I've already stated I think the EMail server angle has been overblown by Hillary's antagonists to the point of absurdity. I've been hearing absolute fables over the AM Band beyond anything in my memory. Last night there were some of the most scandalous things said about most members of the U.S. government including some shocking things about Scalia. I give no credence to any of them.

I think we are being subjected to a storm of misinformation which is being laid by multiple organizations and multiple single bad actors. More than ever one must consider the source AND the media. Unlike the old Gorbachev/ Reagan doctrine one must verify BEFORE trusting.

If you feel like being a bad actor your ownself, of course, nothing I've said in this thread is to the point, so I'm off.