Top Democrats Request FBI Investigation of Trump Campaign Ties To Russia Over Hacking (politico.com)

As the Trump campaign refuses to point blame at Russia for the DNC hacks, top democrats on four House committees are questioning possible connections between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. They have formally asked the FBI to investigate the matter, citing new comments from a Trump confidant. Politico reports: "Troubling new evidence appears to show that the Trump campaign not only was aware of cyber attacks against Secretary [Hillary] Clinton's campaign chairman, but was openly bragging about it as far back as August," said Reps. Elijah Cummings from Government Affairs, John Conyers from Judiciary, Eliot Engel from Foreign Affairs and Bennie Thompson from Homeland Security. "For months, we have been asking the FBI to examine links between the Trump campaign and illegal Russian efforts to affect our election, including interviewing Trump advisor Roger Stone," they said. "In light of this new evidence -- and these exceptional circumstances -- we call on the FBI to fully investigate and explain to the American people what steps it is taking to disrupt this ongoing criminal activity." Earlier this week Stone said that "I do have a back-channel communication with Assange," referring to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose organization has been dropping documents online from Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and has been unloading documents from other Democrats as well. U.S. intelligence agencies last week declared that a connection exists between Russia and allegedly hacked documents leaked by WikiLeaks and others.

Comments

Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we see some of this troubling new evidence before we go to war with Russia please?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the 33,000 emails she deleted?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bush white house lost 22 million, but um that is different. Right? 22 million

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ravenshrike]

Which were recovered in 2009 from backup.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

I can't keep with the various theories - she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies, she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria. Just *insert random theory here* I guess.

Re:Can we see this evidence?

[AHuxley]

The ip range shows some staging server. Code litter left behind is so well understood by private sector security contractors that they should have been able to detect access in real time.
The time zone fits working hours in Russia.
Some person has the skill to evaded social engineering during an interview and thats a sure sign of a Russian background, education or coaching.
All that made it to the press and got passed around as fact.
The press quotes contractors and unnamed gov officials. US gov workers and supporters then quote the press reporting on what the contractors found.
The US gov then hints at what the press reported and experts found as reality with vague wordy paragraphs about code fragments. The US media can then quote the gov as confirming their security contractors.
One big echo chamber.
Code that is well understood and risks been on AV watch lists in the private sector is not much use.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Imrik]

You left out the part where the emails got subpoenaed.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[swalve]

Yuck.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what your point is. They were missing during the duration of Bush's presidency, and only recovered after they became pointless. Is them showing up later somehow supposed to make their email sins not so bad?

Re:Can we see this evidence?

[colin_faber]

The ip range shows some staging server

The IP shows a public Russian VPN provider. Slashdot offers VPN's that operate in such countries as well, does that mean those countries are responsible?

Code litter left behind is so well understood by private sector security contractors that they should have been able to detect access in real time.

There are lots of hacking tools from all over the place floating around the dark web, if you know where to look. This doesn't mean that the Russian government had any hand in it.

The time zone fits working hours in Russia.

Most basement dwellers as Hilary calls them tend to work the same hours as average Russians. Most Russians that work technical positions generally work closer to US hours (because we pay more). I know this first hand as I have worked with Russians and Ukrainians for over a decade now on various projects in the high technology fields.

Some person has the skill to evaded social engineering during an interview and thats a sure sign of a Russian background, education or coaching.

What? Really? You really think this????

All that made it to the press and got passed around as fact. The press quotes contractors and unnamed gov officials. US gov workers and supporters then quote the press reporting on what the contractors found. The US gov then hints at what the press reported and experts found as reality with vague wordy paragraphs about code fragments. The US media can then quote the gov as confirming their security contractors. One big echo chamber. Code that is well understood and risks been on AV watch lists in the private sector is not much use.

You realize that Russia has nuclear weapons right? And that we're already on shaky ground with this with the massive fuck-ups by our feckless president and former secretary of state right? In what world is escalating this going to do anything other than get us into a war?

And once again, totally ignore WHAT has been released, that's not important that all of this massive corruption is on full display, what's more important is tying evil racist woman hating Trump to the evil Russian h4kz0rz.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

I see.

And you are a judge, or comprise a jury of one?

What is your official title in the judicial system?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are going to see a lot of butt hurt Strumpets desperately slinging mud and shouting look over there in the next few weeks.
Then when he inevitably is destroyed in a landslide, they will be whining like the pathetic bitches they are.
So enjoying watching an incresingly irrelevant basket of deplorables meltdown.
Happy days indeed.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[s.petry]

Facts are used to make claims against Hillary. You don't have to like facts, but stop being a fool and denying facts. She lied about Bengazi, read what she told Americans and compare to her later testimony and leaked emails by several people. She lied about having a private email server, she lied about having classified email on the server, she lied about knowing what a (C) was in classified mail [evidenced by the fact that she used the designation in other emails], she lied about hearing from Ambassador Stevens, and that list could go on and on.

The question people should be asking is what is she currently lying about? Open borders which would destroy America, or fixing Immigration [which she has not bothered with in her long political career]. Is she lying about cutting taxes? If so, how do you suppose we pay for free college, free health care, and all of the other free stuff she's promising? Consider that the US is currently 20Trillion dollars in red spending 1Trillion dollars a year more than we currently take in. Is she lying about forcing companies to profit share? That would kill the entrepreneurs in the country because nobody will invest in new business. Especially if she raises taxes on the wealthy as she claims, who are the entrepreneurs.

Oh, you need more? How about asking Hillary what this magical "Fair Share" is that she keeps telling everyone we should be paying. Here is a hint, if she does not give you a number and we already pay the highest taxes in the world it's probably 100%. She want's fossil fuels to become stranded resources. How do we power a country with no assets exactly?

Go ahead and piss and moan about Trump's comment that every single person beyond puberty as at least heard, if not said. Feign moral outrage while popular musicians promote promiscuity, masturbation, killing cops, pimpin hos, and doing anything for money. Virtue signal while Universities teach people how to have great orgasm with a dildo and promote gratification while pushing the idea that only one gender can be held accountable for regrettable sex, and that sex is a great weapon to use to get ahead. Yeah, those same people that get invited to the current White House to party with the Dems and accolades from the Progressives. Why do you think Hillary openly claims she wants Supreme Court justices with a certain type of experience and refuses to mention Constitutional Rights in the same sentence? That should be easy. It's the same reason she has amassed a huge amount of wealth as a politician. The same thing people complain about with every goddamn nasty dictator and tyrant in the world.

You won't get a prize by letting them win the game. You will get bent over first and fucked the hardest. Sorry folks, the US is really that far gone and it won't take much to push it over. All you need to do to validate that is look at the collusion between the Pravda^WMedia and Kremlin^WProgressives (including the current President).

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[s.petry]

Your failure to read is not my mudslinging. www.wikileaks.com just in case you wanted to go read the emails for yourself. Congressional hearing transcripts can be found here, here, and since you appear to be inept with a Web Search you can get help here. If you refuse to find facts and choose to ignore facts, keep your comments to yourself.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[David_Hart]

Oh, you need more? How about asking Hillary what this magical "Fair Share" is that she keeps telling everyone we should be paying. Here is a hint, if she does not give you a number and we already pay the highest taxes in the world it's probably 100%. She want's fossil fuels to become stranded resources. How do we power a country with no assets exactly?

Since when does the US pay the highest personal taxes in the world? Not even close...

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

If you are referring to the corporate tax rate, it may be around the 2nd highest but I guarantee you that not one company pays that rate due to write offs, tax deductions, and loopholes.

http://taxfoundation.org/artic...

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[acrimonious howard]

Yup, there's the subpoena. But even before that (addressing parent now), I'd argue that the emails are more important from the Bush Administration. From the excellent Newsweek article: "when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons."

The Iraq war (II) and subsequent fighting is responsible for over 1 million deaths. 1 million deaths. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that it's not the most serious issue of the past 40+ years. Then there's the refugee crisis, al qaeda in Iraq (I don't care how they spell it), and the birth of isis, all stemming from this political decision.

If you have to talk politics, and sorry - this is a binary choice at the presidential level, you have to bring up the death of a *million* people. And then remember this email thing really came from a political witch hunt, costing tax payers millions of dollars. About a few broken laws and a handful of documents? If Hillary directly shot the 4 Benghazi victims herself, that would be comparable to less than an hour of American soldiers dying in the worst Iraq fighting. But she didn't. She was running a big organization and she (and more so others) made a mistake, for which she's examined and answered plenty already, and changes have been made to hopefully prevent the mistakes in the future.

Where's the Iraq War marathon hearings? How much did who profit from them?

Re:Can we see this evidence?

[AHuxley]

Yes it is as flimsy as that. IP range, code thats been floating around for years that contractors know about, working hours.
The press publish that, the gov then works on what the press publishes and the press reports new official statements.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ichthus]

I can't keep with the various theories - she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies, she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria. Just *insert random theory here*

You're the first retard deflector I've seen say any of those things. The truth is, she's a lying sack of shit criminal. No need to make up stupid alien demon shit.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Facts are used to make claims against Hillary.

In a criminal case, facts are established by the judicial system. Has a judge found Hillary guilty (to use the OP's words)?

She lied about Bengazi, blah blah

Yes, we get it. She is the lizard queen, she kidnapped the princess in order to start a war with Florin, she secretly forged the one ring to rule them all but fortunately the elves knew her mind and hid the three elven rings. We've heard it all.

The question people should be asking is what is she currently lying about?

No, the question that people should be asking is why are Trumps supporters tearing up the bill of rights?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

The truth is, she's a lying sack of shit criminal.

Are you a judge? What's your role in the criminal justice system?

Re:Can we see this evidence?

[dunkelfalke]

You still haven't explained which of the 11 timezones you mean.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Comprehension fail on your part. In no sense am I "speaking for her". I'm highlighting the lack of any evidence in the argument that says she is a criminal.

If you don't believe in the rule of law then that is your problem. Nobody will justify it to you.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

So your argument is: "Vote for Hillary, she is possibly no worse than Bush!" Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Neither does "Vote for Hillary, she is not a misogynist."

And even if there were an equivalence between Bush and Hillary on e-mails, that leaves the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's "two positions", and a string of outrageous behavior.

But the foremost problem with Hillary Clinton is the political positions she holds: both the ones her pollsters have crafted for her public appearances and the ones she has crafted to appeal to her billionaire friends and Wall Street buddies. Of course, nobody knows what she really believes, if anything.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

Hillary's lies about her actions, corruption, and duplicity about her policies, are extremely well documented and are clear facts at this point. You're still free to argue that she is the lesser of two evils, but to pretend that the grievances people have about her are "mud slinging" is out of touch with reality.

Re:Can we see this evidence?

[FalseModesty]

Yeah, because why should the government keep sources and methods of cyber-defense secret?

Oh, wait.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[FalseModesty]

So Trumpy to respond to a request for evidence with ... no evidence.

Nothing criminal in that. Turn off Faux News.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[FalseModesty]

So ... no evidence. Thanks for confirming.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[FalseModesty]

Even if all of that were true (and it isn't even close), it still wouldn't matter. Trump is so vastly worse in every way.

Take the blinders off.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

Let's see...

* Compromised national security by keeping classified on a private server, then lying about it, and deleting emails when subpoenaed.
* Says she's a champion for women, yet attacked the women who her husband screwed.
* Voted for the war in Iraq
* Complete failure in the handling of the Arab Spring, leaving voids in Libya and Egypt
* Pay for play with the Clinton Foundation
*
*
This list goes on and on.

Yes, Trump said some stupid shit that would normally disqualify him, but there's been no evidence, only speculation, that he's actually done anything criminal. And suddenly, a few weeks before the election, we're supposed to believe a bunch of women who come out at the last minute to make claims against him that he's got no chance to defend against...not buying it w/o evidence.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

Since when do you need to be a judge or jury to make the determination that someone has lied, or broken the law. Plenty of people have gotten away with both w/o an indictment or conviction. Stop being naïve. We all judge with our votes.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

Please point to anything incorrect. We'll wait.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Mass Overkiller]

The law Hillary broke re: email retention was put in place due to Bush's loss of 22 million of them. And if it was such a big deal then, why didn't Hillary, a Senator at the time, push to have Bush indicted on record retention charges?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

We all judge at the ballot box. We all know she's lied. The FBI decided they didn't have enough evidence for a conviction doesn't make her less of a liar. She flat out stated she hadn't be subpoenaed, when she had. She claimed she didn't know what a "C" meant on portion marked classified documents, and anyone who's ever worked with classified documents knows she lied about that. That she wasn't convicted doesn't make it any less criminal. She's lied about everything from the source of her name (Sir Edmund Hillary) to being shot at in Bosnia. She lied about the video being the reason behind the Benghazi attack. She lied about being broke leaving the White House. She even lied about being turned down to be a Marine. These are well documented facts that every voter should judge her upon.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Boronx]

Are we going to see Trump's personal emails?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dbIII]

Trump is his own Billionaire Friend moonshine boy.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[s.petry]

Sexual abuse? READ THE TRANSCRIPT! Are you are claiming that him getting turned down for sex is abuse? Pretending that someone talking about a person of the opposite gender is being attractive is "abuse" and not instinctual and biological? Perhaps you are attempting to claim that gold-diggers and groupies don't exist? Saying that only men who accept offers from that type of person is guilty of wrong doing? How about talking about someone being unattractive, is that also abuse and unrelated to biology and instinct? Do you have even a basic understanding of reproductive biology and evolution?

Or are you going to claim that contrary to the tape Donald got off the bus and groped the woman, because he talked about her being attractive and that is the only logical outcome? Which interestingly is exactly not what happened, in fact within 2 seconds of meeting the woman he let her know he was spoken for by another woman.

If you simply believe the cherry picked content so that someone can manipulate you, and you refuse to validate known liars, I say you are an idiot. Fallacious logic is easy to spot, but you have to at least try. Thorazine may be your best option.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[pablo_max]

While I agree with some of what you said, do you honestly believe that Americans pay the highest tax rate in the world? If so, you are ridiculously misinformed. US is somewhere around 35th in terms of personal income tax.
Though, US does have the 3rd highest corporate tax rate. And after all, corporations are people too, in America.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[s.petry]

Overall the answer is "yes" assuming the Generalization is an allegedly "Free" Western form Government. The US pays the 2nd highest (not 3rd) Corporate taxes in the World. This is in addition to income tax, property tax, social security tax, unemployment tax, State tax, Estate Tax, Death Tax, Capital Gains tax, interest taxes, City Tax (does not universally apply but must be considered), sales tax, taxes on services (health and human services fees and various fees for insurance), and Regulatory fees for virtually everything.

A recent report shows that over 20% of our GDP is Government, which requires revenue from Taxes. That is not just the Broken Window fallacy on steroids, it's a full blown rampaging radioactive Hulk.

If you wish to compare some taxes you are being dishonest, but I agree that you can find some types of tax where we are not the highest.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Bartles]

Anyone who supports the affordable Care act is promising to take healthcare from millions.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[zedaroca]

It's very easy, instead of keeping up with the theories, try to keep up only with the facts.

she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies

Shit you made up (or someone you are quoting).

she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria

Exaggerated fact. She is personally responsible for many of the deaths in Syria, not all of them. Obama is the president.
But if you dig very little on the US government their allies and the terrorists murdering in Syria, you'll find the connection pretty easily. If you want to know on Clinton's personal responsibility, the best documented stuff is about Benghazi, the congress hearings are available on youtube.

BTW, "Russia did it" is also in the theories department.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Yes, he's a judge

What's his name?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

No, and considering the nature of the allegations,

That she is a demon, or that she is from the plant Zorg?

and the evidence against her,

I'll ask again: where is this evidence?

she should be tried in court. If she has done nothing wrong then she'll be proven not guilty.

That's what you say. Are you a prosecutor with jurisdiction over these areas of law?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies

Shit you made up (or someone you are quoting).

No. Should I go on?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Let's suppose that he answers "no" and "none". It does not change his argument or the evidence against her.

His role (and yours) is to prove it. You have the burden of proof. That's the way the law works. There will be no witch hunting, there will be no smearing someone because you don't like her. The law demands that the prosecutor prove the case. Only the judge or jury can declare someone guilty , and there has been no trial.

Please note: you don't have to be convicted of a crime to be a "criminal". You only have to break criminal law to be guilty of criminal behavior.

Please note: to be a criminal, yo need to be convicted of a crime. You can be accused of a crime, but the correct language is alleged - it's alleged that Hillary Clinton is a demon. That word alleged is there to indicate that the prosecution has the burden of proof.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

She's a (soon to be convicted) felon when the public gets fed up with all the "get out of jail free" cards her corrupt crony establishment friends keep giving her.

Soon, she'll be elected as President of the United States by a public whose eyes are open to the fact that everything that is said in favour of the alternative is just conspiracy theory.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

MMmm. And Trump is an evil dog with a strong and wealthy corporate lobby behind him. So that bit cancels out: what's next?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

Trump is his own Billionaire Friend moonshine boy.

(1) This isn't a two-horse race.

(2) The Clintons have a personal fortune of $120 million and control of a multi-billion dollar foundation. And unlike Trump, who at least has some business experience, the Clintons made all their money based on their government jobs and their other wealthy friends.

Again, the idea that Hillary is somehow equivalent to Trump is laughable; her demonstrated level of corruption and crony capitalism is beyond anything ever seen in US politics before.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

We all judge at the ballot box.

Ok then.

We all know she's lied.

Apparently not, otherwise she would not be winning by a significant margin.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Since when do you need to be a judge or jury to make the determination that someone has lied, or broken the law.

Since A.D 550 or so

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

Even if all of that were true (and it isn't even close), it still wouldn't matter. Trump is so vastly worse in every way. Take the blinders off.

No, you need to take your blinders off.

Trump got his wealth through inheritance and business. The Clintons got it through their government jobs and from selling influence. That makes the Clintons much worse.

Trump has said some nasty things and touched some women inappropriately. Bill Clinton has a documented history of violent sexual abuse and credible allegations of rape against him; Hillary viciously attacked Bill's accusers and laughed about being able to get a rapist off the hook.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There are dozens of things Hillary has done, each of which make her completely unsuitable to be president.

Trump is an inarticulate, incompetent asshole who can't shut up if his life depends on it. Hillary is a manipulative psychopath whose only goal in life is to amass more power and wealth for her family.

I'll give you one thing: Hillary is much more politically competent than Trump. Given how evil she is, that's a bad thing in my book.

In any case, there are other options besides these two.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

How about, "vote for Hillary, she's not promising to take health insurance away from millions of people from day one"

Unfortunately, Hillary has provided no credible way of fixing health insurance. Instead of fixing health insurance and bringing down costs to European levels, Hillary will continue to do what Obama has done: pay off voters by handing out free stuff, and pay off pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies to get their political support.

"vote for Hillary, she's not promising to jeopardize the health, and imprison ("there must be punishment {re: abortion}.. Donald Trump") 1 in 3 women by nominating supreme court justices who will put roe v wade on the "ash heap of history"

69% of Americans favor some restrictions on abortion. Federal and state abortion laws are properly decided by lawmakers, not SCOTUS. Furthermore, most other advanced democracies have stricter restrictions on abortion than the US, while having equal or better health outcomes for women and children. A simple compromise would be to restrict abortion on demand to within the first 24 weeks.

Or how about "vote for Hillary, she realizes climate change is an actual phenomenon, and not a Chinese conspiracy"

Climate change is indeed a real phenomenon. But, again, Hillary has no credible political program for dealing with it. Instead, she is going to use climate change as an excuse for more crony capitalism.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Jack9]

> Apparently not, otherwise she would not be winning by a significant margin.

That's not how lying works.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

The OP said that rather than passing judgement in a court of law, we'll allow the judgement of the ballot box instead. So if Hillary wins the ballot, she is innocent of all the allegations.

Can't have it both ways.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

It's against the law to make a profit?

What's Trump's view on that?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Jack9]

> Can't have it both ways.

Of course you can. That's reality. You make compromises on priorities in a representative political structure.

People are going to vote for her despite what they believe and some another way because of what they believe. This has absolutely nothing to do with "innocence" (which is a moral concept).

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[drinkypoo]

Sexual abuse? READ THE TRANSCRIPT! Are you are claiming that him getting turned down for sex is abuse?

No, him talking about just grabbing women by the pussy and getting away with it because he's rich is him talking about abuse. Willful sexual abuse. You won't stand for it from the TSA, but it's A-OK for his Orangeness.

Perhaps you are attempting to claim that gold-diggers and groupies don't exist?

That has no bearing on whether Trump is a cheeto-colored turd.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[zedaroca]

You didn't make it up OR quote someone? Your link shows that you quoted someone on this BS.
Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dbIII]

You really are incredibly funny. While I think Hillary would be a mistake Trump is orders of magnitude worse. Sorry about the big word but you've stopped pretending not to be able to read so I thought I'd try something harder than third grade stuff.
So you think even Hillary is more corrupt than a casino boss? Stop sampling that moonshine!

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

You didn't make it up OR quote someone? Your link shows that you quoted someone on this BS.

Sounds like you are trying to have a different conversation. To quote myself:

I can't keep with the various theories - she's a demon, she's a lizard person from the planet zorg, she eats babies, she is personally responsible for the deaths in Syria. Just *insert random theory here* I guess. There is no evident difference between each of these conspiracy theories. Asking us to believe one is the same as asking us to believe any of the others. Hope that makes the point clear.

Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.

Which would imply that none of them are true. Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence) is the same as asserting that she is a demon.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Innocence is a legal concept, not a moral one.

Of course you can. That's reality. You make compromises on priorities in a representative political structure.

Basically, you are suggested HRC should negotiate with the Trump supporters so that they stop saying that she is witch, or a demon, or a criminal, or whatever, In other words, you are talking about blackmail, albeit blackmail in which the blackmailing party has no actual information that might damage her reputation.

Blackmail is a crime. Why should the President negotiate with criminals?

People are going to vote for her despite what they believe and some another way because of what they believe. This has absolutely nothing to do with "innocence" (which is a moral concept).

In other words, your argument is with the OP who suggested that HRC be tried via the ballot box (because they were not confident of being able to mount a legal case). I'm happy to insist on their accusations meeting the bar for an actual conviction, if that is what you prefer.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Jack9]

> Innocence is a legal concept, not a moral one.

You are incorrect. Please understand that US law is not the arbiter of morality. It's known to be flawed, which should give you the proper perspective.

> Basically, you are suggested HRC should negotiate with the Trump supporters so that they stop saying that she is...

You are incorrect. I did not.

> In other words, your argument is with the OP who suggested that HRC be tried via the ballot box

I am not making an argument. I am trying to clarify that your reasoning is flawed without asserting correctness of conclusion. The "ballot box" (which ostensibly is in regards to POTUS) only results in one political change, in context. This does not mean it only indicates one outcome occurred. Correct yourself by not using the OPs weasel words and concepts, that leave a great deal to interpretation.

> if that is what you prefer.

SMH

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

See this article.. Educate yourself. The presumption of innocence is a human right that is enshrined in Common Law, it is enshrined also in the constitution. You don't like the presumption of innocence? Tough titties, I'm afraid.

Since you missed my point I'll describe it another way. Let's say person A breaks criminal law X. They know they broke law X but nobody else does. They are guilty of breaking criminal law. They are a "criminal" yet they haven't been convicted of a crime. It's disingenuous to suggest that the actual murderer or rapist or whatever that doesn't get caught is not a criminal on account of not being caught. You can be a criminal without being a convicted criminal.

In the eyes of the Law such a person is innocent until proven guilty. Without the law, the concept of breaking the law has no meaning. You don't like it? Tough titties.

If you were to say she's not guilty because it hasn't been proven in a court of law I'd say you can't say one way or another. You don't know if she's guilty or not precisely because she hasn't been tried. She knows though.

I say that she is innocent until her accusers prove her guilt. I say that with the full force of law and 1500 years of precedent, a concept that is foundational and core to Western civilisation at my back. Until they prove their case, their words have no effect.

They are serious allegations and she should be tried in court.

That's not for you to determine.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[zedaroca]

Your answer to "shit you made up (or someone you are quoting)" was "No."
You picked the part of my comment and said no, wrongly, since it was someone you were quoting. Had you said "I didn't make this up" and linked to the same stuff, there wouldn't be anything wrong with your post. If you are not simply disagreeing or denying what was said, use words, phrases, expressions different from just "no".

There is no evident difference between each of these conspiracy theories

Do you think demons and lizard persons from zorg are real? Do you think someone in the US government could be responsible for deaths in a country were the USG is admittedly financing armed rebels? If your answer is yes to both, then your assertion is correct, and there is no evident difference. Also, I think you are hopeless, there is no point in trying to reason with you and the rest of this post is a waste you shouldn't bother with. But if your answers are "no" for demons and "yes" for she might be responsible for deaths, then there is evident difference between these theories, and reason to check up facts only on the Syria case.

Does he backs it with a clear, agreed upon definition of demon, and then evidence? So it is not a fact. My point is that you should keep up with facts and not with theories.

Which would imply that none of them are true. Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence) is the same as asserting that she is a demon.

It does not imply that none of them are true because there is no agreed upon definition of demon, while the crimes that she supposedly committed, even if not that clear to non jurists, have hints of a definition (e.g. we know that mishandling secret information is a crime, even if we don't know exactly what crime; we instinctively think that misleading the government to the point were some people are killed is probably a crime, even if we don't know what crime that is).

Asserting that HRC is a criminal (without evidence)

In my first post I suggested the congress hearings about Benghazi on youtube, that's one place were you can find evidence, but I'm not gonna search them for you. Since you are not talking only about Syria, but about calling her a criminal, she mishandled secret information. There is uncontested evidence of that, but in an unprecedented case of kindness from the DOJ, "intent to harm" became a necessity, only in her case. There is another criminal that took a photo of a submarine and posted online when everybody was posting their workspaces and he went to jail, even though there was no harm or intent to harm.
You shouldn't expect people to always have a list of links ready for you, or to be repeating the evidence over and over again every time they call her a criminal.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

The evidence has been outlined multiple times in this thread. I'm sure you can find it.

I've asked repeatedly for the evidence - none has been forthcoming. Seems self-evident that there is none.

I'm not a prosecutor. I'm betting you aren't either. So you have no more authority than I do in that regard.

I don't need any authority, because she is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you.

But I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are yours.

Your opinion has no effect on the force of law. In fact, it carries no weight whatsoever. Why should we care about your opinion?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.

Read the context. The OP is claiming that Hillary committed a crime, that makes innocence a matter of law, not morality. The OP claimed that she could be tried by the ballot box, I generously embraced that concept. My generosity doesn't imply a misunderstanding of the way the law works.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

So you think even Hillary is more corrupt than a casino boss? Stop sampling that moonshine!

Given that Donald Trump has never held government office before, I don't see in what way he could have been corrupted. Can you name some specific instances?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Jack9]

> You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.

I do not. You are arguing with me because I showed you that your argument has problems that leads to this kind of pointless discourse you are having with the OP. You're trying to win a pissing match with ANYONE who challenges what you are saying OR what your point is, where you aren't quite smart enough to understand what the issues are. Good luck.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Your answer to "shit you made up (or someone you are quoting)" was "No."

You claim that I made up those statements. I did not, I quoted a Trump supporter. This is what I just said. Not sure why we keep returning to this? It seems you are trying to counter my argument that those are things that Trump supporters say by saying that I shouldn't quote Trump supporters. Who should I be quoting as examples of the things that Trump supporters say?

Do you think demons and lizard persons from zorg are real?

Let's go over this again. I am presenting the things that Trump supporters say as evidence that they say a range of delusional things, and expect us to believe us on the strength of that. The guys claiming that Hillary is a demon is motivated by a desire to have us believe him in much the same way as the OP who wants us to believe that HRC is a criminal. Is the fact that they (you) , want us to believe these things sufficient evidence? It is not regardless of the content of the claim.

Provide evidence.

It does not imply that none of them are true because there is no agreed upon definition of demon, while the crimes that she supposedly committed, even if not that clear to non jurists, have hints of a definition (e.g. we know that mishandling secret information is a crime, even if we don't know exactly what crime; we instinctively think that misleading the government to the point were some people are killed is probably a crime, even if we don't know what crime that is).

The fact is, if you don't know what the crime is that she supposedly committed, how will you convince me that she committed a crime? My basic criterion is evidence. How can you have evidence for a crime without knowing what the crime is? Sounds suspiciously like a witch hunt to me.

In my first post I suggested the congress hearings about Benghazi on youtube, that's one place were you can find evidence, but I'm not gonna search them for you.

Too bad. That's insufficient evidence for me to believe you. You need to make a compelling argument.

Since you are not talking only about Syria, but about calling her a criminal, she mishandled secret information.

So you say. Are you a judge, or jury of one, in a properly constituted court proceeding?

There is uncontested evidence of that, but in an unprecedented case of kindness from the DOJ, "intent to harm" became a necessity, only in her case. There is another criminal that took a photo of a submarine and posted online when everybody was posting their workspaces and he went to jail, even though there was no harm or intent to harm.

What you mean is, the prosecutor decide they had insufficient evidence to be able to proceed without reasonable doubt becoming an issue, and decline to tkae the matter to court. Which in no way proves guilt on her part.

You shouldn't expect people to always have a list of links ready for you, or to be repeating the evidence over and over again every time they call her a criminal.

If you cannot mount a compelling case to convince an independent third party (such as myself) let alone a judge or jury, then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dbIII]

So your current little bit of pretending to be stupid is suggesting that only people in government can be corrupt!
Say hi to those spotless gangsters who are somehow paragons of virtue for me will you? And get a dictionary on the way out.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[ooloorie]

So your current little bit of pretending to be stupid is suggesting that only people in government can be corrupt! [...] And get a dictionary on the way out.

I notice that you are evidently unable to name any actual instances of where Trump has acted corruptly.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[zedaroca]

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[lsatenstein]

The war is not with Russian Hackers but with the likelihood that it was Trump inspired or funded.
The same evidence that Trump has. Who is more crooked? Trump or Hillary. Who has screwed more people? Trump or Hillary? Who has done more for children? Definitely definitely not Trump.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

No you're lying. I said no such thing.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

Innocence was a moral concept before it ever became a legal one. What do you think the legal system was based upon in the first place?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.

Read the context. The OP is claiming that Hillary committed a crime, that makes innocence a matter of law, not morality. The OP claimed that she could be tried by the ballot box, I generously embraced that concept. My generosity doesn't imply a misunderstanding of the way the law works.

Wow, you've got some comprehension issues. I said we all judge at the ballot box...that's not equivalent to "tried by the ballot box,". And you're flat out wrong about innocence with regard to law and morality.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Maritz]

You think only government is corrupt? Hahaha. I can see why you're a Trump fan.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Maritz]

Portrait, $20,000 - paid for by his "charity". That's one off the top of my head. Using charity money to buy a portrait of yourself is acting pretty fucking "corruptly".

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Maritz]

The Iraq war (II) and subsequent fighting is responsible for over 1 million deaths. 1 million deaths. I can't imagine how anyone can argue that it's not the most serious issue of the past 40+ years.

That's because you forgot to convert it to white people.

One million brown people dying is not relevant to your average westerner.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[david_thornley]

However, Trump is a much bigger and more prolific liar, even assuming that all your claims are true, so I suppose you mean we should vote for Clinton.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

That depends upon what you consider to be "bigger and more prolific". I, for one, will not tolerate someone who's lied about national security, and put peoples lives at risk. HRC has done just that. But, if you can live with that, I hope I don't have to come back in a couple years to say I told you so. I fully expect HRC to win at this point, and I'll wish her well.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[cyberchondriac]

Yes, it was different. He didn't run his own insecure server in an attempt to have complete control and deniability of the contents. The emails lost weren't under protection orders from the FBI.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

I don't need to read it, I'm not talking about the presumption of innocence.

That's what this conversation is about - so you are.

You've missed the point again. I'm talking about being able to break the law, in full knowledge of it, and get away with it. The hypothetical person is still a criminal (they have mens rea and actus reus). You don't like it? Tough titties. (btw I don't like the term criminal, one commits "criminal behavior")

Who cares about hypotheticals? It's your job to prove that she did those things, and you are failing. You don't get to declare her guilty. Otherwise, I can call you a pedophile, and you are assumed to be under suspicion until you can prove you are not.

Is that the way you WANT the law to work?

"That's not for you to determine."

Moot point. It isn't for you to determine either.

I'm not trying to determine anything. This is not a toss up argument. You claim she committed those crimes. You prove it, prosecute the case: otherwise, you fail.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Confirmation bias toward reality, yes.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

And in your view, I should illustrate my observation that Trump and Trump supporters say ridiculous, paranoid things without evidence, but I can't illustrate that observation by reference to the ridiculous, paranoid things that Trump and Trump supporters say?

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent.

Nobody needs an excuse to say she is innocent, a bunch of desperate losers shouting out random things on the internet is not a criminal case, and she has to answer squat to your allegations of demonism and lizard skin and murder and whatever. So let's have a look here:

Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation [clintonfoundation.org] the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;

Does Donald Trump support terrorism?

You'd agree that if Donald Trump or Donald Trump's foundations received money from the Saudi's, that Donald Trump must also, by definition, support terrorism?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Saying things out loud, on record, and then later denying them seems to be a feature of Trump and Trump's supporters.

We all judge at the ballot box.

You deny that you uttered those words? What happened? Did Lizard Demon Hillary use her spiritual alien technology to hack your ./ account?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Innocence was a moral concept before it ever became a legal one. What do you think the legal system was based upon in the first place?

Lot's of anthropologists would argue otherwise - and in any case, it's irrelevant because we don't live in prehistory, we live now.

Are you angling towards an argument that says that Trump is morally superior to HRC? Do you think that will go well?

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Let's have a look at the context:

OP: The truth is, she's a lying sack of shit criminal.

Me: Are you a judge? What's your role in the criminal justice system?

You: We all judge at the ballot box.

Any questions?

Re:Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Sounds on the basis of that that experts in the field think differently to the trumpkenshrillskins. No surprise there.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[david_thornley]

Trump hasn't had any ability to lie about things that Clinton said falsehoods about. (I'm not analyzing whether she knowingly lied about anything specific here, so draw your own conclusions. My research this campaign has been primarily about whether there was a precedent for prosecuting Clinton on negligence with classified materials, and there wasn't. There's too many claims for me to dig into all of them.) Given the amount Trump lies, I'd expect him to lie about any subject that came up, including national security.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[dcw3]

While there may be no precedent for prosecution, there's plenty of precedent for people having access removed, as well as losing their jobs. The approving authorities get funny about anything considered to be "adverse information".

Anyway, I'm much more concerned with what HRC has done when compared with what DT has said.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

The hard and foundational truth, which you seem to struggle with, is that Trump is losing - and not by a little, by an enormous amount. And he is flailing, blaming the Republican Leadership, blaming the Democrats, blaming a global conspiracy, blaming the media, even blaming his own supporters.

Why is Trump losing? Is it his hair? My guess is the reason he is losing is that the message is not compelling or believable. YOU aren't believable. The shills employed to trumpet Trump on ./ are not believable.

So nobody who is against Trump and his plan to murder 100s of thousands of Syrians by nuking them, and his plan for nuclear proliferation which will place nuclear weapons into the hands of whoever Trump thinks will deliver him some personal benefit, none of those people need to justify a single thing to you.

You need to convince us how having HRC as President would be worse than the outcomes of the nuclear strike planned by Trump. If you can't make a compelling argument, she will win. You are not, at the moment, making a compelling argument. Your failure has nothing to do with me.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[KeensMustard]

Dunno why you think I should explain the basis of this conversation to you. If you are confused, that's your problem.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[acrimonious howard]

If Iraq was not a failed state, then isis would not have had room grow into. But more important, I remember how much the Iraq war was costing us, and how strained the military was people-wise. If no Iraq war, we would have had the troops and and political clout to do much more about the crisis in Syria as it worsened. I understand nothing is guaranteed, but the Iraq war has cost us over a trillion dollars, and thousands of American soldiers. We've made the quagmire mistake before, we knew it might turn into that, but we went in anyway, without much planning. Unforgivable.

Re: Can we see this evidence?

[Falconhell]

Its so cute how you take Wikileaks as credible, you yanks really are incerdibly stupid.

Sure thing

[HBI]

Right after they get on investigating the Clinton Foundation.

Re:Sure thing

[randomErr]

And all new allegations that came out in the hacked emails?

Re: Sure thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they should spend tax money and valuable resources investigating one of the most transparent and well respected charitable organizations on the planet? I can't imagine why they would do that, other than at the request of some tiny-handed megalomaniac.

Re:Sure thing

[h33t l4x0r]

Considering that HRC is the most investigated candidate in history, I think it's fair to take a little peek at Trump.

Re:Sure thing

[Rei]

Tell me, how many of the hacked emails have you actually read?

How many of the hacked emails do you think almost anyone bringing them up has actually read?

I, unlike (almost assuredly) you, and the vast majority of people citing them, have actually read several. Now, keep in mind that these were carefully selected by Wikileaks, out of the vast number of emails that a campaign chair goes through, to be the most harmful things that they can find. In most of them, Clinton isn't even part of the conversation - not even quoted several replies back. However, in some of them, things she's written there. And my reaction to reading the actual words of Hillary Clinton?

Honestly, I was impressed.

Lest you think I'm a Clinton supporter, I was an Obama delegate in 2008 in the primaries when I lived in the US, aka fought hard against Clinton and her dirty campaign then. And I was a Bernie backer this time around and was harshly attacked by Clinton fans on progressive sites. Her politics don't align well with mine. She's a hawk. She's very pro-Israel. She's lagged behind the rest of the party on a lot of issues that I think important, only belatedly coming to the table (for example, gay marriage). Let's just say, I'm not her biggest fan.

But she comes across very well in her emails. It's interesting to get to read things from her not intended for public consumption, aka, without a filter. She comes across as extremely wonkish, very well informed, thinking about every last angle of every issue. To pick an example at random: one of the emails was leaked by Wikileaks to show that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were suspected of giving covert support to Daesh. Indeed, that's a very brief line in the email, that it's suspected and diplomatic pressure should be put on them to stop it. But most of the content in the email was a strategy analysis for how to deal with the conflicts in the region. If we do X, then Y will be upset with us, but we can compensate with Z, and if we don't do it then A will perceive B and think that they can then get away with C..... on and on across numerous axes. How can you change perceptions without actually taking action, for example? She brings up Benghazi - every Republican's favorite buzzword. But it's in the context of two US fighter jets who overflew during the attacks, and about how even though the jets had no authorization to attack, simple fear that they would provide close air support diminished the level of attacks for several hours.

Check out any of the leaked emails with any relevant amount of content from her. Not just some brief "here's the twitter-length shocker" summary written by someone else - read them yourselves. Yes, the "shockers" are there. But so are very detailed lines of thinking about policy. No rage or emotional reactions. Actually, if you want to stick any of the "negative Hillary stereotypes" to her private writings, the one that probably fits best is the "cold and calculating" one. Analytic would probably be a better summary. Things like, what are all of the angles on this? What do we know, and what don't we know? What's the long game?

Just my take. Form your own. Take in more than just soundbytes.

Re: Sure thing

[Okian Warrior]

You mean they should spend tax money and valuable resources investigating one of the most transparent and well respected charitable organizations on the planet?

Yes, the one that misled the IRS, according to an internal audit.

Re:Sure thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit.

I read about her insider trading when she asked someone at the IMF in the EU about if Greece was getting a bailout, so her son in law could make a big bet on it happening. The guy at the IMF gave her a fairly detailed explanation of everything being considered, who was involved, and their stances on the issue. It basically came down to he said Greece was getting a bail out [side note, her son in law lost a shit load of money based on that insider information being wrong]. Her response to the information was to forward it onto the accounting/finance expert in the State Department to go over it and give her an in person briefing the next day on what it meant because it was way over her head. The insider trading was on Drudge Report and I decided to look at the actual emails myself.

She doesn't understand shit. I read over 100 of her emails on Wikileaks and she is as dumb as a rock. Its her staff doing literally everything for her and telling her what to say and when. You either didn't read them, or you are lying. About 75% of her released emails that she sent say, "Call me at home at 8 tonight"

Yea, I read, apparently more than you did, and she is a rock. Its not coincidence that Iran ran over the US on their "deal" and Syria is a mess, and her gun running in Libya turned into an assassination of an ambassador. She hasn't a clue what she is doing, period.

Re: Sure thing

[Bartles]

Yeah. Let's just go by what comey said, and not what comey the FBI and the DOJ actually *did*.

Re: Sure thing

[Bartles]

No, he's a Democrat. And Democrats always come home, even if its for a candidate who was the Antichrist 8 years ago, and who rigged the primary against their preferred candidate.

Re:Sure thing

[bongey]

Hillary Clinton , her campaign and staff cannot even figure out how to secure an email. Even the THIRD time they were hacked they STILL couldn't figure out how to secure there email, even my autistic little sister has two factor authentication. The Clinton campaign as about as much sophistication of a group of teenagers planning a raid in World of Warcraft.

And you want Clinton to have nuclear codes? Clinton might as well send them to evening news and publish them on twitter and facebook.

Re:Sure thing

[h33t l4x0r]

Hmm, IIRC that was before the stock act (in other words it was legal for congress members to trade on info like that), and the guy lost money anyway so there's nothing really to complain about. Since you bring it up though, who do think would be more likely to yugely profit from their presidency? Be honest.

Re:Sure thing

[Imrik]

Hillary, if Trump were elected everyone would be watching too closely and would call him on it.

Re: Sure thing

[swalve]

How about linking to a non troll site?

Re: Sure thing

[jedidiah]

> You mean they should spend tax money and valuable resources investigating one of the most transparent and well respected charitable organizations on the planet?

Since when did Hillary get mixed up in the Red Cross?

Re: Sure thing

[SirSlud]

Linking to breitbart is hilarious.

Re:Sure thing

[Rei]

If I were as crude as you, I would be responding with your trademark "bullshit" response right now. Unless you're talking about something else (wherein you should probably reference it), you never read that email because it was lost (at least the relevant parts, aka the attachment). The only writing from Clinton on the subject was a hasty "Pls print two copies." Is that what you call reading things she's written? Furthermore,, the supposedly "damning" thing is a chain-of-guilt. Nothing at all about Clinton giving information to her son it law, it's "Sullivan gave the info to someone else, who works at the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea works for the Clinton foundation too, and her husband was investing in Greece, therefore Hillary Clinton is a corrupt scumbag"). I'm rather surprised that with all of the stuff Clinton had to read on Greece as part of her job that they couldn't find something worse than this to try to tar her with. The most "corrupt" action that's come forth in the Wikileaks releases concerning Clinton and Mezvinsky themselves is that she forwarded an email from him to another government official. I know, stop the presses.

Back to the original topic: I recommend that people read things she wrote and form their own opinions from them. You clearly did not do that. It's something that very, very few people here commenting about the emails have actually done. They just repeat the "gotchas" that the leaks were designed to elicit.

Re:Sure thing

[Boronx]

She is pretty dumb, but Trump's a fucking retard. Clinton is a genius by comparison.

Re:Sure thing

[Orgasmatron]

No shit. I mean what kind of moron goes into productive business and employs tens of thousands of people to build an empire over many decades when the easy money is in being a corrupt politician selling your office and country out to the highest bidder?

Re:Sure thing

[bongey]

Sure when Trump talked Carried Interest Loophole Tax credit . Hillary thought "Is this something about my staff carrying me when I pass out"

Re: Sure thing

[Cederic]

Since you ask:
https://www.scribd.com/documen...

Troll sites can still quote facts, fuckwit. Respond to the content, not its source.

Re: Sure thing

[Mashiki]

Facts = troll. FYI when you're unwilling to look at something because it might hurt your feels, you're just an intellectual coward.

Re: Sure thing

[swalve]

Not a fact until verified. That site is untrustworthy.

Re:Sure thing

[Rei]

That is not, and I quote, "she asked someone at the IMF in the EU about if Greece was getting a bailout, so her son in law could make a big bet on it happening". Nor is that anything other than a hasty "PIs ask your econ team to review." written by Hillary. That's the chair of the commodities trading commission, sending information to the Secretary of State, on a topic that it was her job to deal with, and her forwarding it to her team. Yes, the secretary of state's job is to stay on top of the most major international political issues of the time, for crying out loud - how can you possibly think otherwise? Or did you think that Greece was not one of the most (actually, *the* most) pressing international political issues of the time? She was repeatedly and regularly dispatch to meet with Greek and other European officials on the topic.

The fact that her son in law made bad choices of investments in Greece despite being related to a top US government official should make it obvious how little communication there was between the two on the issue. But no, because she talked to an aide, and that aide talked to someone who works on the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea is in the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea's husband is investing in Greece, that means that Hillary Clinton was carefully manipulating Greek investment funds with insider info - it's all so obvious!

The other thing you linked is also not anything written by Hillary. It's about how a Canadian company (who had given to the Clinton foundation) was bought by the Russians, and in the process a number of different US government officials signed off on the sale - one of them being Clinton. Wow, stop the presses, clearly that's totally like having an email saying "If you give me money, I'll approve your sale"! Do you realize how many things the Secretary of State's office has to sign off on? She didn't even have veto power on the deal. And do you know how many different donors have given to the Clinton foundation (which, by the way, is not "money to the Clintons" - it's a charity that Charity Watch gives it's highest possible rating, unlike Trump's charity, which was basically a scam and was recently delisted by the government of New York, which is also investigating criminal charges)?

    Both Fact Check and Politifact call the accusations concerning Uranium One that this was some sort of corrupt deal false.

Re: Sure thing

[Mashiki]

Not a fact until verified. That site is untrustworthy.

It is verified, go read the emails yourself(there's a search function). Or do you believe that there's someone out there with so much autism that they're going to fake all those emails? Perhaps you prefer your news in bite-size chunks where they tell you what you should believe.

Re: Sure thing

[Mashiki]

That moment when even the WSJ starts calling out the bullshit...

Re:Sure thing

[Boronx]

Trump lost the election the day he chose birtherism as his opening move. Obama strung him along, and then crushed him effortlessly at the white house correspondent's dinner. Any intelligent person would have backed out at that point.

In retrospect, it was an accidental master stroke on Obama's part, because he simultaneously made Trump a hero to half the Republican base, and unelectable, seriously damaging the Republican party.

Trump also should have known that sexual assault wouldn't play well, and that the Clintons would find out about it.

Re: Sure thing

[AutodidactLabrat]

Oh, you mean actually doing their jobs and exhonerating the woman who broke no laws?
That "DID"?
BWHAAAAA!

Re: Sure thing

[Bartles]

I don't think you've been paying attention.

Re: Sure thing

[AutodidactLabrat]

Yes, I have. What I have not done is swallow the crazy-aide that the Limbaugh-Newsmucks-Faux psuedo-news networks have spewed and instead actually read the statements of Republican Director of the FBI in re:email NON-scandal

Re: Sure thing

[Bartles]

How does reading the statements of the FBI directors tell you if she broke the law?

Re:Sure thing

[Citizen of Earth]

There will be no investigation either way. If Trump wins, Obama will pardon Hillary and himself of all wrongdoing before the end of his term. If Hillary wins, she will pardon herself.

Re:Sure thing

[Maritz]

No shit. I mean what kind of moron goes into productive business and employs tens of thousands of people to build an empire over many decades when the easy money is in being a corrupt politician selling your office and country out to the highest bidder?

HAHAHAHA

We're talking about a man who lost a fucking billion on a CASINO. A Casino is a fucking license to print money.

Re:Sure thing

[Maritz]

secure there email

I'm sure you're a real clever clogs, but something like this always hurts a little in the ironical sense, no?

Re: Sure thing

[david_thornley]

The primaries (plural) were not rigged. IIRC, Sanders generally did better in states that selected delegates through caucuses, which suggests that Clinton had broader support but Sanders had more dedicated support. The DNC slanted things toward Clinton, but having the party establishment have some say in who gets nominated is good, and making the more fringe candidates prove themselves more is reasonable.

Re: Sure thing

[david_thornley]

There are sites that are not worth going to, because you know they'll slant things their way and make up things freely. Breitbart is one of those on the right wing. There are others, mostly on the right or left wings.

Re: Sure thing

[Bartles]

Sure. That's why the DNC chairwoman resigned in disgrace after emails were leaked. Because everything the DNC did was good. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to.

Re: Sure thing

[david_thornley]

If she hadn't resigned, and you referred to her at all, you'd be talking about her brazen attitude towards the leaks. I'm pretty darn sure that Clinton-haters would have spun anything she did.

IIRC, she became high up in Clinton's campaign, which doesn't suggest that she and Clinton considered it a disgrace.

Re: Sure thing

[Bartles]

Hillary doesn't consider anything a disgrace. Loyalty is always rewarded.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody is buying this bullshit

you dont need the powers of a nation state to hack a gmail account or remotely wipe an ipad

Re:lol

[Aighearach]

I'm not sure about your argument here. Lets break it down. You're saying that because it is physically possible for somebody other than the accused to commit the same type of act, at any time or place, then it impossible for the accused to have been the one who did it at the stated time and place.

That is so stupid, I'm not even sure there is a name for that one.

Yes, it is so simple that others could have done it. Therefore it was obviously within their capabilities to do it! We do not have any public information about what classified evidence people who are making the accusations are relying on. In time it will all come out, but probably not in the short term during events. But the US does have this thing called "signals intelligence," so you should be cautious about just dismissing out of hand the idea that there could be evidence of who did it.

Re:lol

[king neckbeard]

And we also know that spies have always been morons. The US is especially moronic because at least large parts won't hire people that smoke weed, and the FBI director admitted as such. Also, the official government claim is that only the top levels of the Kremlin could have done something like this, when we know security was a nightmare.

Re:lol

[HiThere]

True, but the published evidence that I've heard is that the attacks came from IPs within Russia. The could be forwarded, it could be non-governmental, etc. Still, there must be better evidence that *that*. But would the target audience of the articles understand any more detailed evidence? So I'm torn between:

1) They don't have any decent evidence, and

2) This is politics, so even though they have decent evidence they don't want to bore their audience.

I consider;

3) They've got decent evidence, but they've got good reasons to hide it

to be an extremely outside chance.

Re:lol

[Aighearach]

And we also know that spies have always been morons.

No, you know that. I know that they're professionals, and if nothing else they're less likely than average to act like morons in any particular case.

Most people don't smoke weed. It costs them very little to leave me out, when by doing so they're choosing people more conformist. You don't seem to understand the decisions they're making from their point of view. Consider looking up "theory of mind." It is never too late to start.

Re:lol

[Aighearach]

True, but the published evidence that I've heard is that the attacks came from IPs within Russia.

I dispute this. If you read any article with informative sources, you'd know that everbody in the media is basing their reporting on classified data they haven't seen and that all they got was the conclusion (that is was Russia) and how confident they are about it. (very) That's all that is known. We don't have the IPs, we do have broad speculation. Most of the of people talking about IPs are talking about them just as a general example of "something I've heard people claim means something it doesn't mean," not anything relating to having information about this actual situation.

Re:lol

[king neckbeard]

Spies know that spies have always been morons, which is why things like "For a while you wondered whether the fools were pretending to be fools as some kind of deception, or whether there was a real efficient service somewhere else.

Later in my fiction, I invented one.

But alas the reality was the mediocrity. Ex-colonial policemen mingling with failed academics, failed lawyers, failed missionaries and failed debutantes gave our canteen the amorphous quality of an Old School outing on the Orient express. Everyone seemed to smell of failure.." was said. I understand their decisions, but they are bad decisions. FBI director Comey admitted as much, until public pressure led to him taking back. And I have autism, so I have done quite a bit of research on theory of mind. It doesn't change the fact that they are morons.

And as for averages, they are worse than average because they operate in the shadows, allowing idiocy to go longer without getting checked.

FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough already. We get it, Democrats, you really want to go to war with Russia for some reason. It's as blatant as Bush's desire to go to war in the Middle East.

Enough. Stop with the pretending that an insider leaking your dirty laundry A) excuses your corruption or B) is a justification for war.

Just, give it up. Please.

Re:FFS

[KeensMustard]

Enough already. We get it, Democrats, you really want to go to war with Russia for some reason.

So the investigation should not continue in case it embarrasses Putin and you are afraid of that?

Re:FFS

[Anonymous Coward]

Pick either candidate, your future president will be a loser and an international joke regardless.
I'm embarrassed for you all.

Re:FFS

[Rei]

Yes, because when I think of pro-war, anti-Russian, militaristic jingoists, it's the party of left-wing hippies.

Re:FFS

[king neckbeard]

Clinton isn't left wing, and her record clearly shows she's a hawk.

Re:FFS

[Rei]

The AC wasn't talking about Clinton, they were talking about Democrats in general.

Re:FFS

[jedidiah]

I remember when Democrats told us that being shocked that our President is a misogynistic womanizer and accused rapist was somehow not-cosmopolitan and made us look foolish in the eyes of the world. It's funny how the wheel turns.

Re:FFS

[SirSlud]

It's the US. Everything is right of center, but it's still the "American Left"

Re:FFS

[colin_faber]

Should we be looking at the Parties records overall or just single instances in the recent past? I'm not sure which one backs your point.

Re:FFS

[h33t l4x0r]

Also, Trump was a Democrat when he attacked those women, so in a way, Democrats were the problem the whole time.

Re:FFS

[king neckbeard]

So, the fact that the effective leader of the Democratic party, the one that will have the most influence on foreign policy, the one that keeps a shitlist on anyone that defies her family, loves war isn't relevant to the discussion?

Re:FFS

[KeensMustard]

I'm not an American - no need to be embarrassed for my sake.

So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, right after we look into that whole election rigging nonsense the DNC pulled. Doesn't feel so good, does it guys?

Re:So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[AutodidactLabrat]

What election rigging?
Not one voter was forbidden to vote, not one vote was switched.
Hillary got more votes, and that is why she is beating Trump with his own mouth

Re:So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because the head of the DNC always resigns in disgrace when nothing wrong was done...

Re: So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[Bartles]

You really suck at teaching.

Re:So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[swalve]

The political parties are private corporations. Primary elections are farces and the parties can pick anyone they want. Did some people in the DNC pull some shit? Probably. But that's their prerogative.

Re:So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[colin_faber]

Right but they are governed by rules set forth by the FEC, which there is a high probability that some where violated in how money was collected and then spent.

Re:So much hypocrisy from the DNC...

[StillAnonymous]

So they've proven they can't be trusted and will manipulate the public. Pretty solid evidence they will screw the public over again in the future and a clear sign not to vote for any candidate they've selected.

The source isn't important

[somenickname]

The whole, "The Russians did it!" is completely irrelevant. The hacks/leaks/whatever show that these people are complete slime and probably shouldn't be trusted to clean your toilet, let alone run your country. If the Russians have this information, it's safe to assume that *everyone* who wants this information has it. This entire crescendo of "The Russians!" is just a ploy to try to get people to ignore the horrible facts in these leaks and instead build up a bogeyman to redirect the peoples anger. It's grade A+ politics.

Re:The source isn't important

[J053]

So, we should just ignore the real possibility that a concerted effort is being made by the Russian intelligence services to influence our election, and install a President who would be favorable to Russian interests?

Re:The source isn't important

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. (Probably.) I'm not sure if the Russian interests are governmental (Putin-related or not), other political, economical or private, but whatever. The ‘interests’ are trying to influence our elections through data leaks. That means they have found that on some subjects their interests align with ours, and if you're a party whose interests align with the people of some nation, there's nothing wrong with trying to persuade that people, and when you do, you'll necessarily influence the elections. So you might as well do it when the elections are coming soon, because if you wait, then you might have persuaded the people but you might still have to deal with politicians with other agendas for another term.

Re:The source isn't important

[RogueWarrior65]

Ah, but the "seriousness of the charge" only works on Republicans.

Re:The source isn't important

[rholtzjr]

They are operating in panic mode as their current tactics are not having the desired effect. This is human nature.

Re:The source isn't important

[guruevi]

Yes? EVERYONE tries to influence EVERYONE's elections, the US meddles in pretty much every "election" overseas. A lot of the 'elections' in South America and even the Middle East have historically been heavily influenced by the CIA if not outright manufactured by them. If these candidates were on the up-and-up they wouldn't be able to be so easily influenced.

Re:The source isn't important

[AHuxley]

The huge worry for the US is a generation of empowered whistleblowers with access. Staff cant use any of the official chain of command to get legal issues to the authorities.
Whistleblowers https://cryptome.org/2013-info... Staff know what happens after people raise internal mil/gov/contractor legal questions within the US.
A walk out to the press is the only still protected way to get the message out. Physically handing over material so no digital trail exists if both sides are cell phone aware when making the exchange. The press now finally know not to network any of material handed over or when drafting their reports.
The US constitution and laws are very protective when reporting mil, gov and contractor issues. Legal issues cant be protected behind color of law secrecy clauses, findings, letters.
So the US gov now has to review all past clearances and profile who might have walked out in bulk to the waiting US press. Or use the buddy system to double the size of big gov. Or secure the lobbyists, consultants, friends, think tank staff, lawyers, "dual" citizens from access.
All that has huge political funding and party access issues so its better to blame the some other nation rather than try to secure the US gov.

Re:The source isn't important

[somenickname]

Frankly, I applaud any agency, foreign or domestic, that exposes the filth that constitutes our government. In this particular election cycle, the DNC has taken a beating. I suspect the Republicans have remained relatively unscathed by The Russian Bogeyman because it's pretty obvious that Trump will insert his foot into his mouth whenever given the opportunity. Why try to destroy a candidate that is obviously going to destroy himself?

Re:The source isn't important

[jedidiah]

This sounds like the cry of the losers. Democrats are desperately trying their best to demonize Trump and anyone who might vote for him. Despite all of this, there remain tons of people that are simply not Democrat or have hated Hillary pretty much her entire political career.

Crying foul here is the loser trying to blame someone else for their failings. It was true for the Bernie supports. It's true any time Trumpies wine about it. It's true for Clinton News Network and friends.

If it's the truth then it's only transparency.

Re:The source isn't important

[quantaman]

The whole, "The Russians did it!" is completely irrelevant. The hacks/leaks/whatever show that these people are complete slime and probably shouldn't be trusted to clean your toilet, let alone run your country. If the Russians have this information, it's safe to assume that *everyone* who wants this information has it. This entire crescendo of "The Russians!" is just a ploy to try to get people to ignore the horrible facts in these leaks and instead build up a bogeyman to redirect the peoples anger. It's grade A+ politics.

If a newspaper does investigative journalism that seems to hurt your candidate slightly more than their opponent you'll raise hell.

But when Russia sends their intelligence service to dig up every possible piece of dirt on the opponent... well that's completely fine!

Re:The source isn't important

[ZenShadow]

If Russia did it, then the Russians are the ONLY people doing any investigative anything.

Everything on the news is just mud slinging, on both sides. This is embarrassing.

Re:The source isn't important

[Orgasmatron]

Democrat Logic

Re:The source isn't important

[bongey]

Oh fuck off, and try to read. John Podesta owns 75,000 shares in a Putin/Russian company. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
Now it is bad to be friendly with Russia who also has 1,000s of nuclear warheads.

Because starting cold war 2.0 and living under nuclear threat is a good idea, just because Clinton wants to be the Queen.

And Trump is unstable, yeah fucking sheep.

Re:The source isn't important

[FalseModesty]

Translation: I believe whatever I read, as long as it supports my existing beliefs.

Here's a test: "Trump is a murderer." There, to do you believe that? Remember, the source of that claim is "completely irrelevant".

Ah, what's the point? You can't argue logic with Trumpies.

Re:The source isn't important

[dcw3]

Yes, let's shoot the messenger. Which is nothing but an alleged boogeyman distraction from the evidence presented. Don't like what it's laid out?...distract. Typical tactic.

Re:The source isn't important

[dbIII]

And Trump is unstable, yeah fucking sheep.

Thirteen year olds maybe but nobody is claiming he is fucking sheep yet.

Re:The source isn't important

[HiThere]

Well, it's not *completely* irrelevant, but the real question is "Did whoever did it doctor the stuff before releasing it?" So far it seems as if they didn't, which causes me to doubt that anyone very high within a government is involved...but it could just be someone quite subtle.

Re:The source isn't important

[Rei]

I'm sorry, were you under the impression that Podesta owned stock in Joule Unlimited was a secret? Podesta is on the *board* of Joule, and was for years. Joule is not a "Putin/Russian" company; it's a biofuels (algae-based) company from Massachusetts. Yes, Russians have purchased 20% of the shares of Joule. This is also not secret. Audi also owns part of Joule - does that mean that Podesta, by virtue of serving having served on their board, is a German plant?

The leak is only brought up to "raise questions" about whether Podesta still owned any stock in Joule. It doesn't actually say he does - it says he transferred stock into a different company, but doesn't say what was done with it after that. They're of course trying to imply that he still owns it, and that since Russians own 20% of Joule, that means that they control Podesta, and in turn, control Hillary Clinton.

Versus, you know, Donald Trump who repeatedly openly praises Putin, has openly endorsed his Syria strategy, supported him on Ukraine, stated that NATO is obsolete, hired as a campaign chair a personal adviser to Yanukovitch who works closely with top Russian officials (Manafort), same with Carter Page (*current* representative for Gazprom, Russia's state oil company), is heavily financed from Russian banks, shows up at rallies waving around information only ever published on Russian propaganda outlets like Sputnik the same day it was published, and intervened on the Republican platform at the convention on precisely one issue out of the thousands covered - that one issue being to weaken support for Ukraine.

Yeah, totally comparable. Totally.

Stupid to do this.

[random_ID]

It's not like Democrats need politically motivated charges to destroy his campaign, he's doing an excellent job of that on his own.

Re:Stupid to do this.

[misexistentialist]

That impression is projected into your mind by the Democrat media apparatus, it's not reality. They know that most voters do not support Hillary's platform, so they use negative psychological conditioning and emotional associations, "stop [voting for] Trump" STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP STOP

Re:Stupid to do this.

[Aighearach]

We have a satellite up in space with a giant mind control beam making it appear that reality favors the Democrats, but don't fear, nothing is real, it is all projected into your mind by the apparatus.

I mean, or else your party flag-bearers lied to you. But that is too impossible to consider.

Illegal?

[zedaroca]

Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...

illegal Russian efforts to affect our election

They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.

Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.

Re:Illegal?

[Gussington]

They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.

Um, I'm pretty sure hacking a computer system you don't own is illegal...

Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered?

Yes, that is how the law works.

In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.

Probably, but just because one person breaks the law doesn't give everyone else permission to do it too.
It's quite likely that the NSA, Trump, and Clinton are all criminals, that doesn't mean Trump has carte blanche to do what he likes. Clinton has been investigated numerous times, why shouldn't Trump be held to the same standard?

Re:Illegal?

[Frank Burly]

Trump is a menace, but happily the government cannot ban anyone from being president (except through impeachment) and I think the same goes for Senators, House Members and the Federal judiciary. The reason is that you do not want the current government to be able to easily render segments of the population déclassé.

Re:Illegal?

[hey!]

So you're saying it's legal in Russian, the way invading Russia was legal in German in 1941.

Ultimately what laws amount to is everyone else ganging up on you because you're acting like a dick.

Re:Illegal?

[zedaroca]

You understood my comment.
My point is that many Americans keep saying that what the NSA does against foreigners is legal, and that it is their job. Well, as one of those affected foreigners, I feel offended that Americans defend the assholes in the NSA that disrespect my laws, constitution and rights. Your comparison with the 1941 Germans is great too.

Re:Illegal?

[zedaroca]

Um, I'm pretty sure hacking a computer system you don't own is illegal...

Well, if it really was an official Russian campaign, it would be legal for them. Just like many Americans like to point out that when the NSA fucks people from other countries it is legal.

Yes, that is how the law works.

Agree with you, I'm my country spying on me is illegal, but the NSA is doing it and many Americans say that "that's their job". According to the GCHQ, they are doing PSYOPS here too, also illegal here. BTW, this is exactly what the Russians are being accused of.

Clinton has been investigated numerous times, why shouldn't Trump be held to the same standard?

I wasn't talking about investigating Trump, TFA used the expression "illegal Russian efforts". Since the Snowden files came I heard from many Americans that most of what the NSA does is legal, if that is the mentality, these supposedly "Russian efforts" should be considered legal too, because its supposedly the Russian laws and policies.

My point was: If the Russians doing this is illegal, everything the NSA does against foreigners is illegal too. If Americans want to feel outraged with this they should stop doing it to others first.

But one extra point not related to my original post: since what was done to hurt Clinton's campaign was to show the reality of who she is and how she works, I think Americans should be grateful to whomever did this. Just like I think they should be grateful to whomever leaked the Trump tapes. You should know who your candidates are.

Re:Illegal?

[jedidiah]

Why bother with Nazis? These are the same Russians that were the red scare from the time they stole the revolution from Kerenski until Gorbachev let it finally implode.

You don't need to point to 1941 Germans, you can point to 1980 Russians.

The great (funny) thing about these arguments is that Russia doesn't represent any great ideological existentialist threat any more. That's Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Re:Illegal?

[ZenShadow]

Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...

Yes, let's.

In this case illegal or not is not the primary issue. Democracy works to the extent it does because the playing field is nearly level. If one side has far more power to dig up dirt on the other side that is a perversion of the process.

Hillary has the actual sitting President of the United States working for her campaign at this point. He's making speeches and so forth. He is the head of our government, and has at his disposal the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Suddenly, even with those "Russian" hacks, the field seems like it's tilted at about an eighty degree angle. Two guesses which side has the better position.

IOW, that was a terrible argument if you think supposed "Russian" involvement is somehow making the field less fair.

That said, in case you couldn't "tell", I still haven't seen even a shred of evidence that the Russians are involved. All I hear is Hillary screaming it at the top of her lungs. Funnily enough, at the beginning of this cycle, I was deeply concerned about Trump's lack of diplomacy and what it would do for foreign relations. I never expected to be terrified of Hillary reaching office for the very same reason, albeit on a far more immediate and concrete level.

Some of the younger folk around here are probably too young to remember the cold war. I remember the tail end of it, and that was bad enough. I'd really rather not go back to that, especially with an opposing Russian government that seems far less stable and far more aggressive. I doubt it would be so cold this time.

Let's face it: both candidates suck, and Hillary will probably have us at war with Russia halfway through her first term.

What we should be doing is having a meaningful conversation about the alternative candidates, and convincing everyone to vote for neither of the current major party candidates. If nothing else, we as citizens should be sending a loud and clear message that the behavior of the major parties -- BOTH of them -- is unacceptable to the American people. Yes, I know I'm dreaming.

Hey... are write-ins still allowed? Maybe Bernie or Ted can still win!

Re:Illegal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...

Yes, let's.

In this case illegal or not is not the primary issue. Democracy works to the extent it does because the playing field is nearly level. If one side has far more power to dig up dirt on the other side that is a perversion of the process.

Hillary has the actual sitting President of the United States working for her campaign at this point. He's making speeches and so forth. He is the head of our government, and has at his disposal the NSA, CIA, FBI, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

First, he is an American citizen. Second he is our elected leader. Third he is still the current leader of the democratic party, so yah, he has a voice in things.

No he is not using government resources to elect Hillary. The republicans on the other hand have used goverment resource after government resource to attack and investigate her. Meh I can't believe your comparing Obama's appropriate defence of his party to an outside government trying to manipulate our elections.

What nonsense. The president doesn't have the power to do what your asking. I know trump says he will fix the libel laws and do all these wild and crazy things, but I think your seriously over estimating the powers of the commander in chief. Abuse of power on that scale is not allowed. People in every agency would be reporting it, and rightly so. This is not Russia.

Re:Illegal?

[ZenShadow]

No he is not using government resources to elect Hillary.

You have exactly as much evidence of that as Hillary's campaign has of Russian involvement: none.

My original point stands.

As to "The president doesn't have the power" and "People in every agency would be reporting it", I would really like to live in the dream world you live in. I actually do doubt that Obama is doing anything other than talking; he doesn't have to. But rest assured, if for some reason he wanted to, he most certain does have that power, and nobody would say a word until many years later when they thought they could get away with it.

Is Obama using official resources to tilt the election? Not unless you consider his speeches to be "official resources," in my opinion (I do think it's inappropriate for a sitting President to campaign for or against a candidate, mind you, but that's just my personal opinion, and a far cry from 'abuse of official resources'). Is Russia using it's resources to tilt the election? Nowhere but in Hillary's wishful thinking most likely. Everyone seems to forget that there are plenty of hackers and script kiddies right here in the US with an axe to grind against Clinton for whatever reason, perceived or actual.

Want me to believe foreign entities are involved?

Show me something more substantial than a YouTube clip of Hillary Clinton saying "The Russians did it!".

Re:Illegal?

[quantaman]

Let's for a moment pretend it was the Russians...

illegal Russian efforts to affect our election

They are not illegal, they followed the law, the constitution and their policies.

Or are you saying that when conducting operations overseas the laws in the country affected should be considered? In that case everything the NSA does is illegal, not just the national spying.

If the NSA hacks a computer in Russia it's legal in the US but a crime in Russia.

If the GRU hacks a computer in the US it's legal in Russia but a crime in the US.

This is the exact reason that a spy can collect a pension in their home nation but get arrested if caught working abroad.

Now, do you think American's are allowed to collaborate with foreign spies working in the US?

If not, then why do you think Americans are allowed to collaborate with foreign intelligence agencies hacking computers in the US?

Re:Illegal?

[BlueStrat]

No he is not using government resources to elect Hillary.

Oh, stop!

You, I, and everyone else knows that's not true.

Just the simple fact alone of all the security groundwork prep, actual security personnel/vehicles/equipment, and a thousand other logistic/security/communications expenses that are involved whenever a POTUS goes anywhere for anything, never mind the 4-star accommodations/dinners/etc or travel via AF-1/Marine-1/'The Beast' shows this statement to be false on it's face.

We had Congressional hearings concerning the IRS being used to harass and suppress groups politically/ideologically opposed to Barack Obama's re-election with no real repercussions for anyone involved (because Republicans want to be able to use the same tactics when they hold office), and now that Obama is a lame-duck sure to be pardoned by a HRC administration, what's to stop federal agencies including the IRS from again being used as political weapons?

The two major US political parties are nothing but Kabuki theater. They have become nothing but a means of keeping the population deceived into thinking they have choices and voices and to divide the people into groups and classes and then pit them against each other to fan hatred which creates extreme partisan followers willing to do anything as the ends justify the means.

If you vote for or back *either* major party or their candidates you're part of the problem and the biggest reason why things never get better.

Currently I'm looking at possibly backing Evan McMullin, an ex-CIA agent. That could change going forward depending on many factors. Here's a piece he's published outlining his principles.

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/p...

Strat

Re:Illegal?

[zedaroca]

Now, do you think American's are allowed to collaborate with foreign spies working in the US?

I did not say or think that.

If not, then why do you think Americans are allowed to collaborate with foreign intelligence agencies hacking computers in the US?

I already clarified that earlier in the thread, for someone that misunderstood in the same way.

I wasn't talking about investigating Trump

Re:Illegal?

[dbIII]

Let's face it: both candidates suck, and Hillary will probably have us at war with Russia halfway through her first term.

I've seen this a lot over the last couple of months. How did this weird meme start?
Was Reagan also a menace? Eisenhower?

Re:Illegal?

[dbIII]

Sorry but the 1980 thing is just hilarious now even if it wasn't back then. Haven't you noticed what has been happening in Afganistan since 2001? We've been doing exactly what the Russians did for the same reasons they did it, only now there is no cold war and nobody looking so hard for things to point the finger over.
Russia is doing almost exactly what they did in Afganistan in 1980 in Syria today. Not pretty, wrong in a lot of ways but we are mostly on the same side so we don't make the fuss we made in 1980.

Re:Illegal?

[HiThere]

First you'd need to prove that he as an operative rather than just a collaborator. I really doubt you could find any evidence that would show that. (The Manchurian Candidate comes to mind, but that was fiction.)

Re:Illegal?

[HiThere]

You've got a language mixup, which others have been sharing.

Legal is not a unitary entity. If it was an official Russian policy, then it was legal IN RUSSIA. This doesn't make it legal in the US.

The actions of the CIA are frequently illegal in the country in which they occur. This doesn't make them illegal within the US.

And action can be taken against someone in court only in the place where the action is illegal. I used to be able to say and only for actions that were illegal where they occurred, but US precedents, e.g. the case against Kim Dotcom, have removed that constraint. Now you could be tried in a Thai court for slandering their king, convicted under Thai law, and have extradition applied for even if you never set foot in Thailand. I consider this an extremely harebrained precedent, but the US has established it multiple times. And this means that if they could identify the perpetrators, presuming they are Russians and in Russia, and have never left Russia, they could be prosecuted in a US court, and a request for extradition could be sent for them. I don't know what extradition treaties the US has with Russia, but I believe that Russia is attempting to join the EU (has joined), and I think that there's an extradition treaty involved in that. So potentially the "accused perpetrators" could be extradited from Russia to the US under treaty for doing something that was legal and part of their official duties within Russia to be tried in a US court.

STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.

Re:Illegal?

[zedaroca]

It's not a language mixup. As you correctly understood, if it was the Russian government, it was legal for them, in Russia. I didn't include the "in Russia" because I wanted people to understand that by themselves. After all, we foreigners hear day after day that everything the NSA and the GCHQ do is legal and respectful to the constitution and to the policies in place. So I wanted to make Americans read the same thing we do, that violating your rights is legal.

The actions of the CIA are frequently illegal in the country in which they occur. This doesn't make them illegal within the US.

I'm aware that what the NSA is doing here in my country is illegal here, while legal in the US. I find it pretty disgusting to allow doing things against others that you don't allow for yourselves. As I pointed out, my problem is that many Americans defend that part of their government keep committing crimes against us, as if there was nothing wrong with that, because for them it's not a crime, that's legal and their job and nice, cause fuck foreigners.

On the extradition, it usually is done only if the alleged crime is a crime in both countries (that's why there is a rape allegation against Assange, and not just the lighter offense that expired). So this could happen if it was a Russian citizen, not an operative. Additionally, some countries only do it if the country requesting the extradition respect human rights conventions (that's why the court from Canada said that the US is fine when they decided to extradite Matt Dehart, it wasn't ass licking).

Poltical Stunt

[rtb61]

A stupid electioneering stunt to what, show desperation, demonstrate panic, put even further on public display the political corruption of various government agencies.

What the fuck do they not understand about the majority of people thinking it is great, fantastic, job well done, when foreign governments spy on the corruption of your government and release that information to the public.

The only message to the foreign government from the majority of citizens, thank you and the message to their own government, fuck you, after all that corruption has been exposed.

Seems like a new espionage service is coming together in this world. The foreign policing service, when other countries political corruption starts affecting you country, send in the foreign policing service to expose that corruption and force it's prosecution by the affected citizenry. I think it is a great thing and definitely, most definitely do want to see more of it. Fuck you corrupt US corporate democrats.

Lets have every country exposing the corruption of every other country, so that we, the victims of that corruption can fix those problems and fix those individuals behind them, in various rehabilitation centres ie prisons.

Trump may be KGB

[Vegan Cyclist]

I don't know it for sure, but I heard about it on the internet. I think Trump needs to produce papers proving he's not a KGB agent. (I believe he is their most tremendous agent - there has never been a better KGB agent than Donald Trump.)

Re:Trump may be KGB

[Gussington]

I don't know it for sure, but I heard about it on the internet. I think Trump needs to produce papers proving he's not a KGB agent. (I believe he is their most tremendous agent - there has never been a better KGB agent than Donald Trump.)

I know you're being funny, but I'm old enough to remember the lengths the Soviets went to turn important US citizens to their cause. It would be naive to think that the ex-KGB establishment is Russia isn't engaging similar tactics right now.
I'm not for a moment suggesting Trump is a 'KGB agent', but he has business history is Russia, and it's quite possible some deals have been done somewhere. Who knows for sure, only some impartial examination of financial history would tell for sure.

Re:Trump may be KGB

[PopeRatzo]

I'm not for a moment suggesting Trump is a 'KGB agent', but he has business history is Russia

More than just "business interests". Most Western banks won't do business with him any more, citing him as a bad risk. The only place left for him to get money for his "projects" is the Russian oligarchy.

The one Western bank that will still deal with Trump is Deutsche Bank, and their stock price has taken a huge hit.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wh...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...

Re:Trump may be KGB

[dbIII]

Who knows for sure, only some impartial examination of financial history

If that was enough he'd look guilty as hell due to his huge recent loans from Russian banks. It needs more than that, even though it looks pretty bad to have a canditate that owes a lot to a nation we have a few problems with.

Re:Trump may be KGB

[DogDude]

Some very, very good people told me that he absolutely is an agent. These people are the best.

Re:Trump may be KGB

[Citizen of Earth]

What papers would prove that? A KGB membership badge with "CANCELLED" stamped on it?

Re:Using Eugene McCarthy's tactics is brillant!

[J053]

Uh, that would be Joe McCarthy. If you expect people to take you seriously, you really should make a minimal effort to get your facts straight. It's not like there's not an Internet to use for looking up these things.

What about investigating the content in the leaks?

[StandardCell]

Disclaimer: I don't think either Trump or Clinton is suited to be president, for different but equally important reasons, and we desperately need a real third party candidate better than Johnson or Stein.

That said, the level of political gyration in this election is beyond astounding. I and many others have lost complete faith in journalistic integrity and ethics, and we are approaching Soviet-era levels of information control with respect to the leaks. In those leaks are very serious allegations of fraud, illegal collusion with the media and with other parties inside and outside the government, perjury and other criminal acts, the hypocritical content aside.

You will also notice that no politician has forwarded these allegations for investigation to the FBI, nor has the FBI apparently undertaken any effort to investigate these allegations. You will notice that the FBI has begun investigating the source of the leaks, but this action is contradictory in and of itself. Either the leaks are false, in which case there is nothing real that was leaked, or the leaks are true, in which case both the leaked material AND the source of the leaks are investigated.

What we have now is an overt subversion of the rule of law and the distraction pointed at our old enemy Russia. Russia, of course, isn't too happy with us meddling in Ukraine or Syria because we can't get our fucking noses out of those places and nearly every other country where we have some cold war or energy interest. As much as I regret saying this, the Arab Spring has shown that having a dictator in the Arab world is preferable to having tribal religious extremism tear the country apart, destroy some of humanity's oldest heirlooms in the name of religious extremism, and spawn terrorism all over the world.

But even that isn't enough. Now there's word the CIA will organize a cyber-attack against Russia soon. I'm definitely not a big fan of Russia with their imperialistic ambitions and the oligarchs robbing common people their blind, but this country is doing everything but deescalating conflict and creating an extremely dangerous situation.

Perhaps it's finally time to clean up our own house, first and foremost. If we can't fight the level of corruption that the Wikileaks emails and subsequent actions of the current administration have shown, then there's no doubt that using yet another foreign conflict as a distraction is driving this country headlong into disaster. Too bad people can't get together and put their partisanship aside to have a million people march outside the Capitol or down Pennsylvania Avenue to attempt to get them to investigate everything and everyone impartially, foreign and domestic, Republicrat and Demican, and everyone in between.

In other words, if we don't get our shit together, welcome to the alternate version of Alien vs. Predator. Whoever wins, we lose.

Verdict

[CanEHdian]

The verdict: the Trump Campaign wasn't "tied" to the Russian state-sponsored hacking group(s), but their relationship was just extremely careless.

Re:Verdict

[jittles]

The verdict: the Trump Campaign wasn't "tied" to the Russian state-sponsored hacking group(s), but their relationship was just extremely careless.

And no reasonable prosecutor would indict Trump anyway, so why bother?

Re:HMBOOWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[zenlessyank]

You sound like maybe you are infected. Maybe go to the doctor and get that checked out. Hallucinations and dementia can be treated.

Re:But it's okay if you're a Democrat

[Gussington]

Bill Clinton taking Chinese Communist money for his campaigns, Carlos Slim spending his millions in this election cycle, or Hillary taking millions from Middle Eastern countries. All of that is okay when you're a Democrat. Foreign money is just another campaign contribution, just like dead voters' votes count just like live ones.

True, so why is Trump hiding? If he discloses his tax returns, just like every Democrat and Republican before him, then we can hold him to the same standard.
No-one is pretending either side are clean, we just want to compare like against like.

Wait about 2 weeks

[Okian Warrior]

Can we see some of this troubling new evidence before we go to war with Russia please?

I'm not counting out Trump losing for about the next 2 weeks. We have yet to see the following:

1) Wikileaks has said it has evidence that will get Hillary indicted. As yet, the Podesta E-mails haven't done that, so everyone is expecting a big drop sometime soon. Probably on Hillary's birthday, October 26th.

2) We haven't seen the last of the Podesta E-mails. A recent drop shows the democrats creating two organizations to infiltrate the Catholic religion, to create a "Catholic Spring" at some point of their choosing. (Yikes! WTF, Democrats?)

3) It seems that Hillary had a hand in Kim Dotcom's arrest (remember him?). In response, Kim has promised a surprise birthday present for Hillary. (Many people will be quick to point out that Kim is various flavors of asshole, but that's beside the point - he's tech savvy, has lots of contacts, an axe to grind against Hillary, and a ton of money.)

4) Someone over at Reddit/4chan has Clinton's deleted E-mails, and will be releasing them. These are apparently the ones deleted from her server before turning it over to the FBI.

5) One of the recent Podesta dumps included his iPhone account password, and someone hacked his account, post a screencap proving that they were in the account, and sent all the data to Wikieaks. This means that Wikileaks not only has Podesta's E-mails up to whenever, they've got more recent ones up to about 2 days ago.

6) ...and apparently remote-wiped his phone.

7) Hillary is not appearing in person *anywhere*. (Check her rallys and engagements: it's all Bill, Barak, Michelle, and Chelsea. Hillary appears in person once from now to the end of the month.) Conspiracy theorists think that this is because of some hidden illness, but that's probably not the case. The Podesta E-mails reveal that the reason she's not being seen is because she's perceived as untrustworthy in person. Her campaign is being run largely by remote control.

8) A couple of tapes of Clinton have yet to be released.

9) And weirdly, during the last debate a fly landed on Hillary's face. That's not a problem or even especially interesting, but the fact that it landed, walked around and she never flinched or even notices is creeping out a lot of people.

I'm not giving up on Trump just yet, and I've still got lots of popcorn.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[zedaroca]

Wikileaks debunked the 4chan hack.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/786653209825861633

No they didn't. We checked that the credentials had already been changed.

Agree with the rest.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[phantomfive]

9) And weirdly, during the last debate a fly landed on Hillary's face [heatst.com]. That's not a problem or even especially interesting, but the fact that it landed, walked around and she never flinched or even notices [youtube.com] is creeping out a lot of people.

That will affect the election close to zero.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[somenickname]

This is proper Popcorn Season. All the bickering and name calling is nothing compared to what is coming. When you have two deeply flawed candidates, everyone is going to hold their cards close until it's time to lay them all down. The American public forgets about a news story after a week. Shit is about to get gloriously real.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[jedidiah]

This entire circus that you're blindly taking at face value is just a distraction from the fact that the two parties do have some meaningful differences. Both choices are mired in sexual scandal that overshadows little things like Hillary promising to pick a fight with Russia live on national TV.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[beelsebob]

No, the kiddy fiddler thing is that he's currently the subject of a federal lawsuit alleging that he raped a 13 year old 4 times...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[ooloorie]

This entire circus that you're blindly taking at face value is just a distraction from the fact that the two parties do have some meaningful differences

I agree as far as the parties are concerned.

But that doesn't change the fact that we still need to elect a president, someone who can wreck the budget, wreck the lives of millions of Americans, and start wars.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[FalseModesty]

Nice collection of tin-foil-hat conspiracy nonsense.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[Boronx]

Bush looking for WMDs in his oval office

I hope you gave a lot of money to the Trump campaign, because I hear the rent at Trump tower is really high.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[dbIII]

7) Hillary is not appearing in person *anywhere*

At this point Hillary's mouth is her worst enemy. Keeping quiet while Trump is busy attacking Republicans is better for her than saying something else that's stupid at the last minute.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[HiThere]

I think you're assuming a lot of people like Hillary, and I don't think that's true. They just see Trump as worse. Certainly that's my opinion. Hillary would need to be shown to be acting arbitrarily and viscously against entire groups of people before I'd start to think that Trump was a better choice.

There is the reasonable point that her vice president appears to be even worse than she is, but the same is true of Trump.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[dcollins117]

you do realize that the "kiddy fiddler" thing was Trump saying he was looking forward to dating someone when they turned 20, right? Well after they're no longer a child?

This conversation took place between Donald Trump and a ten year old girl. Where I come "I'd like to fuck you but you're not old enough yet" is not appropriate conversation between a grown man and a preteen girl.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[DogDude]

She can speak English. He can't. It's that simple.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[uniquegeek]

We keep hearing how people like don't like either candidate. Solution is elect Hilary, indict her, and then VP becomes President. Problems solved for everyone.

That's the closest to "elect a third candidate" that is actually possible.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[Citizen of Earth]

As yet, the Podesta E-mails haven't done that, so everyone is expecting a big drop sometime soon.

Keep in mind that very few e-mails dumped so far have actually been written by Hillary herself. And keep in mind that she likes to curse a lot and is privately rather bigoted against most SJW-protected groups. Perhaps the most damaging e-mails are being held back and were written by Hillary herself.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[Citizen of Earth]

Or, it's being held back do the Democrat Party won't have the opportunity to *REPLACE* Hillary with another candidate.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[Citizen of Earth]

Did anyone else notice that at the second debate, Trump had an American flag as his lapel pin while Hillary had a "Hillary" logo? Goes along with "I'm with Her" from Hillary's campaign and "I'm with You" from Trump's.

Re:Wait about 2 weeks

[harrkev]

Hillary's first act in office will be to pardon herself.

Obligatory...

[LynnwoodRooster]

In Soviet Russia, KGB Trumps YOU!

Naive [Re:The source isn't important]

[Tablizer]

leaks...show that these people are complete slime and probably shouldn't be trusted to clean your toilet, let alone run your country.

Sorry, but you are naive. Politics is slimy and always has been. If the revelations of the leaks shock you, then you dearly needed that education, and probably more.

The work-place is Dilbertian bullshit, and large institutions even more so. Humans are merely talking apes who fling virtual poo if they are not allowed to fling real poo.

Honest politicians get bulldozed over by the rush of slimers wanting their spot.

Re:Naive [Re:The source isn't important]

[phantomfive]

Here's my favorite email. It's older, but from Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself. Don't know how I'd react in her situation. but it makes me laugh.

Re:Naive [Re:The source isn't important]

[phantomfive]

Mark and Luis – digital created a fake craigslist jobs post for women who want to apply to jobs one of Trump’s organizations.

lol

Nice post

[Okian Warrior]

Dude, great post. I would definitely mod you up if I had points.

Re:Attacks by foreign powers ARE Acts of War

[guruevi]

If you understood the technical aspects of what went on, you would notice that it is impossible to (at this point) blame the Russians.

Her e-mails were hacked decades ago. This Podesta guy was "hacked" simply by guessing a password. Any hacker worth their salt would've used a proxy or Tor or something similar. Whether or not a node or even the IP in the logs was in Russia is not evidence.

It's not like the hackers left a note "KGB took this, thanks for Mister Trump"

And furthermore

[Okian Warrior]

All those allegations against him, are ALL malicious and designed to stop him getting into power.

Did any on those women come forward before the released 'I just grab their pussy' tape? No. He was secretly recorded (where's the FBI investigation?), the tape was released to embarrass him (FBI?), and all these women came forward with their stories. They can't prove their stories.

Trump is the victim here, not these women, he's the one being abused, he's the one being spied on, they should say sorry to him for making up those stories.

Furthermore, none of those women pressed charges or filed suit against a billionaire at the time. I guess we weren't a very litigious society back in the '90s.

Also, at least one witness came forward to claim that nothing happened - that he was there with the woman (and Trump) the entire time and nothing happened.

Re:And furthermore

[Anonymous Coward]

@"Also, at least one witness came forward [breitbart.com] to claim that nothing happened -"

Exactly! Anthony Gilberthorpe was on the flight in 1981 or 1980 and says nothing happened. He remembers Jessica Leads because he says he has a photographic memory and immediately recognized her when he saw a video of her when she was young.

If she was molested she should have sued then, instead of simply complaining to a stewardess and changing seats.

The press and these women needs to apologize to Trump for these false allegations.

Re:And furthermore

[beelsebob]

Uhhh, actually, charges were pressed *long* before this... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re:And furthermore

[SirSlud]

To people like you, women are an entirely different species. In the words of Trump, sad.

Re:And furthermore

[Boronx]

I wonder what Gilberthorpe was doing in first class, on a flight to New York when he was 17 years old? Was he taking a break from supplying male street meat to conservatives in parliament, as he claimed to have been doing?

My God, breitbart gets fed shit, they pass it on and you guys eat it up.

Trump bragged on tape about sexually assaulting women. Nobody is going to believe he didn't do it.

Re:And furthermore

[Maritz]

The press and these women needs to apologize to Trump for these false allegations.

Your orange faced hero bragged about grabbing women. Nobody believes him or you. Suck it the fuck up.

Thanks

[Okian Warrior]

Thanks - I wasn't aware of that.

Re:Thanks

[zedaroca]

You're welcome. Basically the 4chan news was the MSM screaming that Wikileaks doesn't vet their publications. Wikileaks immediately told them it was false reporting (as is much of MSM's "reporting"), but they are not going to fix that. Just like they made a big deal that Wikileaks promised leaks for an earlier date and didn't deliver, when in reality they didn't set a date for the leaks and even explained the media's "mistake".
That's why Wikileaks Twitter feed (with their replies) is now one of the best news source. They have history on telling the truth.

Building wealth

[Okian Warrior]

I mean, it seems pretty weird to "not give up on Trump" at this point. You really genuinely want a republican president so badly that you're willing to elect a kiddy fiddler?

Heh.

That is sooooo far away from important to me that it doesn't even register.

Important to me is turning away from globalism, making the government work for Americans, and fixing some of our obvious problems.

Of those, the most important to me is the globalism thing. If you look at economics from a math perspective (specifically: game theory, and I'm a math person) you see that economics is based on flawed rationalizations. It's patently obvious that the rationalizations are true and correct given their assumptions, but that the assumptions are wrong.

The thing that made America great in the last half of the 20th century was the ability for citizens to build and keep wealth. Many people could get an education with little-or-no money, find a job, buy a house and raise a family.

People are finding that they can't do that any more, largely because of globalism. When a wealth-building country partners with a non-wealth-building country, all the wealth flows out of the great country and into the poor country.

England can partner with Germany or Norway and would do well. England partnering with Poland, Spain, or Greece is a disaster - Greeks can move to England and take high-paying jobs, but the English can't do the same in Greece. Greece is full of corruption, which limits personal wealth building.

To take a clear example, Clinton wants a 65% estate tax. This is a clear burden on creating and keeping wealth, it's double taxing, and it will be a disaster.

Farms can't be left to children, they'll have to be sold to pay the taxes. Family-owned businesses too. And houses.

And if there's no one interested in your farm, or business, or house at the time you need to sell it, it'll be sold for a lot less than it's worth just to pay the taxes.

That's only one example, but there are a ton of others. Pretty-much everything Clinton is for will pull the country down into poverty.

Yes, I'm for Trump simply because he wants to reverse that trend.

I don't care if he's Sithrak the blind gibberer in his private life.

If he's not Clinton, he's better.

Re: Building wealth

[bestweasel]

He's such a stone-cold, 100% genuine solid idiot that should he win, he will be outwitted by every world leader he meets. They'll only have to say "ISIS" and he'll jump up and beg (if that doesn't work they'll dangle a pretty young woman in front of him and make sure the cameras are running). That's why he's Putin's poodle. Putin's a great leader, Putin fight ISIS, yeah we're best friends on no wait I mean we never even talked. Wikileaks is all he has against Clinton so he has to be grateful.

He can't even cope with questions from journalists without bluster, bullying and evasion, oh yes, and lies, mustn't forget lies. He digs his own traps, decides they're not big enough, digs a bit more then jumps in. How well would that work as President?

Re: Building wealth

[jasmusic]

He's such a stone-cold, 100% genuine solid idiot that should he win, he will be outwitted by every world leader he meets.

Why do you say stupid shit? He didn't get to his station in life by being outwitted. You should be able to deduce that. Every square inch of Manhattan has to be negotiated for between banks, developers AND regulators, on a level I bet you are utterly unaware even exists. His "bullying bluster and evasion" prevents his enemies from nailing him down with technicalities that aren't even important to THEM. That's what Democrats do, ignore the forest and harass you on the dimensions of each leaf.

Re:Building wealth

[jrumney]

To take a clear example, Clinton wants a 65% estate tax.

You do realise that the proposal to raise the estate tax does not come with any proposal to lower the exemption limit, which currently stands at $5.45M. This tax is simply not affecting ordinary citizens, you are being misled by the very people who are taking your wealth and lining their pockets with it.

Re:Building wealth

[drinkypoo]

Yes, I'm for Trump simply because he wants to reverse that trend.

This is literally insane. Trump's actions tell us (as opposed to merely suggesting) the exact opposite. Trump's products are made overseas and he runs a visa mill which even has his name right on it. If you think that Trump is opposed to globalization you are batshit nuts. He will be in kneepads for the IMF in a hot second if it will help him.

Also, the estate tax was only ever on the wealthy, who otherwise endlessly concentrate wealth and built dynasties... like the Clintons would like to do. If you want more Clintons in politics, by all means, oppose an estate tax.

Re:Building wealth

[speedplane]

The thing that made America great in the last half of the 20th century was the ability for citizens to build and keep wealth.

Maybe it was also that all the factories and wealth in Europe was destroyed, and that the U.S. was one of the few countries in the world with working infrastructure. Maybe all of this is just inevitable.

Re: Building wealth

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm for Trump because he terrifies rainbow safe space politically correct Nazis like you. Anything you are against, I am for. I would rather be dead than be you.

Re:Building wealth

[ooloorie]

People are finding that they can't do that any more, largely because of globalism. When a wealth-building country partners with a non-wealth-building country, all the wealth flows out of the great country and into the poor country.

"Globalism" is kind of a meaningless political catch phrase that means whatever they bogeyman du jour happens to be.

"Globalism" that involves agreeing on economic meddling, "globalism" that creates free movement of people into welfare states have the effects that you give, and "globalism" that produces "free trade agreements" that are collections of crony-capitalist and protectionist policies are bad things.

"Globalism" in terms of people being able to buy stuff in other countries and not face import restrictions or tariffs is a good thing.

Re:Building wealth

[ooloorie]

You do realise that the proposal to raise the estate tax does not come with any proposal to lower the exemption limit, which currently stands at $5.45M. This tax is simply not affecting ordinary citizens, you are being misled by the very people who are taking your wealth and lining their pockets with it.

That isn't true. Clinton is, in fact, lowering the threshold for estate taxes from $5.45 to $3.5 million.

You think of $3.5M or $5.45M as cash in the bank, but that's not what this is about. This is about family businesses, and $3.5M is peanuts for the value of a family business. What makes it even worse is that there are many ways of avoiding the estate tax, meaning that people with good lawyers and foresight get out of it while other businesses get destroyed.

In addition, Clinton's claim that this will raise sufficient revenue to pay for her spending are lies. Raising the estate tax wouldn't do that even under optimistic assumptions. More likely, it would encourage so much additional legal tax avoidance that it wouldn't result in any additional revenue.

Re:Building wealth

[Rockoon]

his tax is simply not affecting ordinary citizens

It effects small business owners.

In fact, its a very direct attack on them.

Want to leave the small business to your children? Too fucking bad says Clinton.

Re: Building wealth

[drinkypoo]

I'm for Trump because he terrifies rainbow safe space politically correct Nazis like you.

Trolling, or unfamiliar with my comment history?

Anything you are against, I am for. I would rather be dead than be you.

You can be dead any time, if you want.

Re:Building wealth

[dcw3]

We were buying VWs and Toyotas by the early 60s. What's your point?

Re:Building wealth

[Boronx]

That's when smart people saw that this would happen. The slow decline of the US began in earnest about 1970.

Re:Building wealth

[dbIII]

Yes, I'm for Trump simply because he wants to reverse that trend.

So how is he going to do it? Yell at someone to fix it?
He's got nothing and the party he is supposed to be representing is not going to listen to him anyway since they think he's come in from outside like a Cuckoo.

Re: Building wealth

[dbIII]

His "bullying bluster and evasion" prevents his enemies

And as an American voter you are his enemy. Think about how you've been treated by him for a bit - exactly like those rubes he wants to fool and fleece.

Re:Building wealth

[dbIII]

That isn't true. Clinton is, in fact, lowering the threshold for estate taxes from $5.45 to $3.5 million.

Come on now, the still isn't worth all that much moonshine boy so why are you worrying?

Re: Building wealth

[whodunit]

Ah, yes. The old "idiot" attack. George Bush, former fighter pilot: idiot. Trump, the multi-billionare: idiot. Have you ever flown a fighter plane or made millions of dollars? If they're idiots, what does that make you?

Re:Building wealth

[whodunit]

the hot second it will help him

Why?

There was some Rockefeller back in the 20s who ran for mayor somewhere and won - his campaign slogan was "I'm too rich to be bought." Trump himself has admitted openly to what everyone knows anyway; "the money never mattered to me except as a way of keeping score." Type A personalities are self-actualized, aggressive and competetive, and their salaries are mainly a way to compete with other CEOs. No matter how wealthy you are, you can only sail on one yacht at a time. CEOs do it for the challenge.

Also, being President is a bitch. Just look at the mudflinging and character assasination - to say nothing of open hatred - being hurled his way. And that's just peanuts - what if he actually gets the job? It's no great secret that Presidents live under constant stress. We've all seen how fast people age with that burden on their shoulders. Seems like a hell of a price to pay for some fame.

Re:Building wealth

[drewsup]

+1 mod for this...globalism is the downfall of western middle class....

Re:Building wealth

[ooloorie]

Come on now, the still isn't worth all that much moonshine boy so why are you worrying?

What I'm worried about is that Hillary promises to use this fictitious tax windfall to pay for all the money she is trying to buy votes with, and it's not going to work.

Re: Building wealth

[drinkypoo]

He loves tax loopholes because it means he doesn't have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to in taxes. He loves illegal immigrants because they work for him for cheap. He loves free trade because it means his crap can get made super cheaply in third-world countries. He loves bankers because they loan him money to build crap.

Amen. And then he even talks about how stupid people have to be to support him, insults them all right to their collectively idiotic faces, and they lap it up and ask for more. One really has to be a spectacular moron suffering from massive cognitive dissonance to believe that Trump would somehow serve The People. But one has to be a spectacular fucking moron to support him anyway while being insulted for it. Low-information voters, indeed. It's not because they don't receive the information. They simply ignore anything which doesn't meet with their pathetically optimistic world view — an optimism maintained through carefully cultured ignorance. No one else talks about rainbow safe spaces.

Re: Building wealth

[bestweasel]

He got to his station in life because his father amassed several hundred million dollars. You think Trump deals with the details of every square inch himself - does he strike you as that sort of man? I understand the technique of "keep 'em guessing" but it's not usually applied to people whose votes you're trying to win. Does Trump speak in some secret code that makes perfect sense to his supporters while everyone else sits there open-mouthed?

When you say technicalities are you including sexual assault? In the second debate, why didn't he deny it when first asked instead of talking about ISIS? That was no kind of strategy - that was a cornered Donald Trump in a blind panic.

Re: Building wealth

[bestweasel]

It makes me a horrified spectator. George Bush's main claim to fame in case you need reminding, is causing the deaths of several hundred thousand people though bad decisions, at the least. Not my sort of role model.

Trump's father started Donald off with a few million, and presumably left him some of the hundreds of millions in his will. He managed four huge bankruptcies by himself though and has a much lower tax rate than you. Is he a multi-billionaire? It's hard to tell because he tells so many lies. We may find that he is bankrupt again and in hock to the Bank of Moscow.

Re: Building wealth

[bestweasel]

Oh no, immoral rules for radicals! How could they stoop so low. Even if all of that stuff was true and meant what you think it does, Trump would still be a worse choice.

Trump is not the saviour you are looking for. You wanted someone who could beat the RNC's fix but you were so beguiled by his tinsel charisma and TV appearances - and because he was the only one around who could win the nomination - that you didn't pay enough attention to his personal qualities.

The machine will win again. Pick a better candidate next time.

Re:Building wealth

[Rockoon]

If there is a "small" business worth $5mil, then they aren't small

Just the land alone for a small commercial/retail business in a city will approach $5mil. Now STFU dumbfuck.

Re:Building wealth

[Citizen of Earth]

Genuine photographic proof of Trump grabbing a pussy!

Re:Building wealth

[dcw3]

I'd argue that the decline started a decade earlier.

Re: Building wealth

[Maritz]

Yeah. They're both fucking idiots. Bush "I have made good decisions in the past, I have made good decisions in the future." Fucking idiot. Just like Trump.

Re:Building wealth

[Maritz]

So in your world, Trump is a selfless creature sacrificing his own well-being for the poor US citizenry. R O fucking F L. Certainly couldn't just be a psychopathic narcissist, after the world's most powerful job purely for the ego trip and the power itself. Surely not.

The world is clearly nowhere near cynical enough.

Re:Building wealth

[TechnoJoe]

Let's not forget, small businesses includes farmers. With the cost of land, farming equipment, and livestock, the farm might very well be over the limit.

Re:Building wealth

[erapert]

My wife works for a small business that has eleven employees a small office several servers and some software with patents etc. In total that is way over $5m. Also, Rockoon is correct. Typical of a leftist to demand other's money and call them "greedy corporatists" etc. even while robbing them.

Re:Building wealth

[jwhitener]

$5.45M is a small business?

It's kind ofcute.

[os2fan]

They claim the boogey man (russians) did it, with little or no proof. The fact that Wikileaks is handling it suggests that it's more an inside job. They like some sort of creditability in their stuff.

The claim that the Russians did it means they don't know how to handle classified information. Having classified information outside of a classified site is a felony, and we note the poor sailor in california that got nabbed for six photos at the lowest level. Here we're talking of 22 emails at Top Secret, supposedly left on a computer come what may,

Clinton really does not want you to see the archive, because it shows some fairly serious crimes.

It is about time.

[will_die]

We need an answer and an explanation on hillarys knowledge about russian's time travel capability.
Since her claim is that trump told them to go back in time and get the email we need to know what else they can do. Also who leaked this info to trump, since he now knows enough to ask the russian to go back.

so what?

[FalseModesty]

So we should go ahead and do what Putin wants, because everybody wants something? That makes Trump sense.

Re:so what?

[guruevi]

What do you mean what Putin wants? You actually believe these conspiracy nutters? If everyone voted against someone because of a conspiracy theory how did Obama get in office?

waterboard him

[FalseModesty]

Since waterboarding is the only way to get at the truth, we need to waterboard Trump. Or worse.

Keep America safe!

If I were Trump

[nehumanuscrede]

I would formally request that the exact same team of incompetant agents who investigated Hillary.

Who, despite the blatantly obvious, elected not to indict her.

With those folks on the case, you could probably get away with just about anything.

Why did Hillary blame a video for Benghazi 9/11?

[ABEND]

Hopefully the answer will be in her deleted emails. Apparently she has forgotten the name of the person who told her to blame the 9/11/2012 Benghazi attack on a video. That person should be named. Her denouncing of the video was so inflammatory that it likely caused further terror attacks. The person who told her to assign this blame should have to account for this.

It's all Rigged.

[transami]

Its all rigged to make Clinton President. I mean really, the only way she could win is by running against Trump. How many months now have we heard Trump bashing on every station on every show all day and all night. It is all we hear in the Media. Trump is a Manchurian candidate, whether he knows it or not, just like McCain and Palin were before him. His sole purpose is to loose.

If we were smart we'd all vote for Gary Johnson (although that probably wouldn't matter either, since I am sure they control the tally machines too).

Trump is audited by the IRS every year

[ABEND]

If there is evidence of criminality in his tax returns he would be under prosecution. He may have a personal, business, or even political (i.e., he'll release his taxes when Hillary produces her missing email) for not releasing them. Do you make your taxes public? If not, then why not?

Re:Trump is audited by the IRS every year

[Gussington]

If there is evidence of criminality in his tax returns he would be under prosecution.

The question is ethics, not criminality. When you are running for leader of the free world, this is kind of an important personality trait.

He may have a personal, business, or even political (i.e., he'll release his taxes when Hillary produces her missing email) for not releasing them.

Who cares, when you run for office you are expected to be accountable and transparent. Whether you are left right or other, accountability and transparency should be a mandatory requirement.

Do you make your taxes public? If not, then why not?

I'm not running for public office, but I did do a low level government contract once and was required to declare not only my taxes, but my income, outgoings, all the places I've traveled to, and any connection via family and friends to foreigners and/or foreign governments. This is standard security/anti-corruption practice which I did, why would you not expect the same of anyone attempting to run the country?

Re:Trump is audited by the IRS every year

[david_thornley]

If there is evidence of criminality in Trump's tax returns, he'd be audited, which he is. Nobody should be assumed to have done anything bad just because he or she is being audited, but Trump isn't going to get prosecuted unless and until the IRS has the illegal behavior nailed down. The government isn't in a tremendous hurry to prosecute tax evasion.

What I find interesting is that he apparently can't make a profit, and thus apparently owes no taxes. He presents himself as a successful businessman, but there's good reasons to doubt that.

Re:Trump is a communist

[HiThere]

Communists, as opposed to those who pretend to be communists, have always been quite thin on the ground everywhere. There hasn't been a communist government in Russia since Lenin's 2nd year. The Russian Communist Party quite quickly turned into oligarchs, and the guy at the top turned into a proto-Czar. Stalin had a lot in common with Ivan the Terrible. I'm told neither was really hated within Russia. (Georgia might have a different opinion.)

So for Trump to think highly of the top oligarch is not surprising. I'm much more surprised by his admiration for Hitler.

P.S.: I case you can't guess, I'm *not* a Trump supporter.

Re:DnC starting another war

[DogDude]

it's not conservative thinkers starting wars and fking the people

And on your planet, the sky is green and the grass is blue, huh?

Wag. The. Dog.

[bmo]

Thursday US officials familiar with the investigation told CNN there was "mounting evidence" that Russia was supplying leaked emails to WikiLeaks, and last week in a conference call organized by the Clinton campaign, former Acting CIA Director Mike Morrell said it was "absolutely clear... WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2 are working with the Russians on this."

WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE?

There is none. This doesn't even pass the belly-laugh test. How do the Russians benefit from any of this? They don't - either way they get some asshole on our side to deal with, and Hillary is more predictable.

Here's the thing:

1. Bernie fans claimed that the Primaries were fixed.

2. Emails from Wikileaks show that there was actual bias (understatement) from the DNC for Hillary.

3. Trump says the primaries were fixed. (like, whatever man, but bear with me for a minute)

4. We saw things like Brooklyn, where over 125K voters were scrubbed from the rolls indiscriminately.

5. The fucking FEDS now claim that the Russians fucked with our elections.

What is the primary common thread through all of this?

That /someone/ - IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO DID IT - fucked over the American People in the Primaries. A vote count is a data set. Once a data set is corrupted, you can't trust it. Ever.

Everyone is pointing out that the Primaries were fucked with. The results are invalid. Q.E.D. Motherfucker.

This wasn't an election. This was a clusterfuck with malice aforethought.

And now, in order to divert attention away from the above, we have NBC News *parroting* propaganda fed to them about a CLANDESTINE TOP SECRET HUSH HUSH CYBER WAR AGAINST THE RUSSKIES!#$!#$#@!!

Since when do we announce clandestine operations on the fucking teevee?

This is intellectually insulting.

Fuck it. I'm "throwing away" my vote for Jill Stein. If my vote isn't going to count anyway, I'm going to put it somewhere else other than supporting "more of the same" bullshit.

--
BMO

Re:Wag. The. Dog.

[david_thornley]

It's normal for investigative bodies to not release all their evidence. I'm not going to take them at face value (*cough*IraqiWMD*cough*), but they do have more information than you or I do. What you and I know is that the attack at least went into Russia, there's some evidence in what code we've got, and there are apparently similarities between this attack and some attacks strongly believed to be Russian state-sponsored. I'm not ruling it out.

Obama is also making a diplomatic matter of this, which means he takes it very seriously (for whatever reasons), and I don't remember him seeming eager to get into more open conflict with Russia (in contrast to Bush, who did seem to want to pick a war with Iraq).

I also have no reason to trust anything in particular in the released emails, since I distrust Russia, Assange, and anyone who would hack into a political organization during campaign season.

Re:Wag. The. Dog.

[bmo]

This is why I trust the content of the emails:

Every argument against them is an ad-hominem attack against Assange and the Russians. Not against the content, mind you, /only/ against Assange and the Russians. And the spin in the press (NYT) against the emails is that they have recipes for "creamy risotto" in them - minimizing the content of everything else.

Every article, every statement attacking Assange is a mere smoke bomb to obscure the actual content of the emails, which have stunning correlation to reality.

That's why I trust the emails. I don't have to trust Assange or anyone with all this bullshit being flung by TPTB and their lackeys in the NYT.

I am a lifelong Democrat. No longer. Not after this election season. And no "BUT TRUMP" is going to get me to pull the lever for Hills. The "I'm sick and tired of the status quo" straw that broke the camel's back is now we are directly attacking Yemen at the Saudis' behest.

Fuck 'em.

Yes. I mad.

--
BMO

Re:Wag. The. Dog.

[david_thornley]

In criminal investigations, there's a chain of custody. The prosecutor is ready to bring forth witnesses to show where every piece of evidence was found and what was done with it to establish that X was found at the scene of the crime, and it was the same X that was sent to the lab, and the same X that the tests were performed on, and so forth.

We have emails here that were extracted by criminals or a foreign government for political purposes, and they went to Assange who released them for political purposes. My judgment is that criminals aren't trustworthy, the Russian government isn't trustworthy, and Assange isn't either. We have stuff that went through at least two layers of probable liars before we saw it.

The Russians historically have been pretty good at this sort of deception, and would make sure there was a lot of correlation with reality to make whatever they may have slipped in plausible.

Similarly, Corney said there was no precedent for prosecuting Clinton over the mishandling of classified material, and I've read a lot of people saying that that proves he's corrupt, which is an ad hominem. It's done instead of presenting evidence. I've looked at evidence, and my conclusion is that Corney was speaking the truth. There's a lot of it going around.

Democrats request FBI

[RobertJon]

The chairmen of the four committees inform their minority party petitioners that the respective committees have far too much work to do, uncovering crimes, corruption and breaches of national security involving Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton et al., to allow any distractions.

How about bribing Castro?

[dbIII]

Just as you haven't put up any for Hillary. The newspapers are full instances of both.
The latest bit of Trump corruption to come to light was in Cuba a few years ago. Stop pretending to be so stupid and open your eyes. If your hero has a chance he is going to fuck you over big time.

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[ooloorie]

Just as you haven't put up any for Hillary.

The Clintons went from no money to a personal net worth of $120 million, all based on their government service. That is corruption.

The latest bit of Trump corruption to come to light was in Cuba a few years ago.

That was an instance of law breaking, not corruption. And given that I considered the trade restrictions with Cuba to be unjust and destructive, I have no problem with him having broken the law in that case. Any other examples?

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[ooloorie]

If your hero has a chance he is going to fuck you over big time.

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative. Trump isn't my first choice for president, and I think he's not very competent, but his actual political program is a fairly moderate conservative program. Depending on how close it looks where I live, I may hold my nose and vote for Trump anyway because I don't want Hillary.

Stop pretending to be so stupid and open your eyes.

Hillary has already "fucked me over". But that's not why I'm not voting for her. Neither am I not voting for her because I think she is cold, opportunistic, corrupt, duplicitous, and utterly unlikable.

The reason I don't want Hillary to become president is simply because I think Hillary's political program is awful. I agree more with Sanders and JIll Stein than with Hillary Clinton.

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[dbIII]

Ah yes, and the Mafia stuff in the 1980s was also "law breaking, not corruption" - stop pretending to be an inbred idiot on moonshine and act your IQ.

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[dbIII]

What is really funny here is every time Trump is mentioned you go "but Hillary ...".
Blind tribalism at work.

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[ooloorie]

Ah yes, and the Mafia stuff in the 1980s was also "law breaking, not corruption"

The mafia bribed politicians. The politicians were corrupt. English--you should try learning it some time.

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[ooloorie]

What is really funny here is every time Trump is mentioned you go "but Hillary ...".

No, honey, Hillary was part of this thread before I joined it, and since then, you, not me, have brought her up twice.

Blind tribalism at work.

True: you are suffering from blind tribalism. As for me, I am an ex-Democrat, former Obama voter, registered independent, and libertarian.

Now go back and join your fellow Democrats and fellow Republicans in your common "basket of deplorables", because there is really little difference between you two.

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[dbIII]

No, honey

Ah yes - the passive agressive shit you keep on laying into the "SJWs" for. Fine if it's in the service of your tribe is it?

As for your stupid "anyone not for me is against me" shit on the end accusing me of being in your stupid political tribe, I do not have a dog in this fight and can not and should not vote - you, moonshine boy, have a say in your destiny but I should have no more say in this than Putin or his bankers (who are financing Trump - but he'll probably screw them over instead of doing what he is told).

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[ooloorie]

I do not have a dog in this fight and can not and should not vote

You should probably be committed actually.

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[dbIII]

Because?

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[dbIII]

English--you should try learning it some time

You are the one that pretended not to speak it moonshine boy :)

Re:How about bribing Castro?

[dbIII]

I'm a libertarian

A libertarian cheering for an autocrat?
That does not happen, that is something else, someone who wants a fucking divine right to rule King and not someone interested in liberty.

Why do you keep on pretending that you cannot understand English when you obviously can?

So much easier this time

[rickb928]

Fortunately the Russian, Iranians, etc. have much better Internet access, and don't have to rely on a face-to-face with Pence on the tarmac, keeping the SR-71 idling while he sneaks off to negotiate a deal.

Seriously, this is absurd. Everything is a hack, right? Sure, the Trumpster has a direct line to Putin. Got it.