FBI reopens investigation of Clinton emails

Post Reply New Topic

You are misrepresenting the context of her laughing, it certainly wasn't self-satisfied enjoyment about helping a rapist, which she was professionally obligated to do by a judge. I mean, there are enough things to legitimately criticize Hillary for without making s**t up.

So you were against the Iraq sanctions, and also against the Iraq War? Were you truly in favor of doing nothing? Would you really have nothing to say about the surely horrible consequences of letting Saddam live?

I'm not sure who this is addressed to, so I'll go ahead and answer it. I think that Saddam was the lesser evil. Don't get me wrong, I don't like sadistic dictators, but what has happened since has hurt a lot of people. Plus the U.S. never had a legitimate reason to go there anyway. They should have stayed out of it.

For the FBI to be stepping in like this, it's big and I mean BIG

obviously some brave patriots in FBI has rebelled

The Clinton crime syndicate must never be allowed control of this country, the very existence of this country mean hang in the balance

Sanctions didn't require invading Iraq.

Sanctions in the 90s killed 500,000 Iraqi children, it created a humanitarian disaster and is probably a significant contributing factor to why that part of the world is so unstable. It was the Clinton administration that signed the Iraqi Liberation Act which made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States, the War Party crosses partisan lines with Bush Clinton Bush Obama - maybe another Clinton - then probably another Bush. Some democracy we have don't we?

The question of how we could of dealt with Saddam is a pretty easy one to answer in hindsight; don't personally support his dictatorship by selling him weapons including chemical weapons or even just not give him the green light to invade Kuwait. As bad as what Saddam did to Iraq, I think a lot of people in Iraq now think the US has done far worse.

Right, in hindsight you can easily criticize anything that didn't turn out perfectly. Under this criteria, Clinton is damned for making any decision at all. Most decisions are choices between almost equally bad options. Trump has the advantage here of never having made any foreign policy decisions whatsoever.

Trump has commented on things over the years, everything he was said lends me to believe he is a much better alternative than Hillary since he's the first politician I've heard speak the way he has on certain issues and I think his mantra of putting 'America First' is much less destruction and makes us all better off.

Just aside from the corruption, I don't know how anybody could say Hillary did well as Secretary of State.

One trait I would like to point-out, about autism, as I have experienced it, is a near-photographic memory and plenty of mental inertia.

What if you see something misspelled. Do you remember it that way. What if you find something misplaced. Do you keep putting it there?

It's happened, to me. (I can usually tell you when and where I saw it, to the nth degree.)

A few, salacious claims, probably, easy to repeat --
The (moribund) KGB did it.
Alien-hunters did it.
Neocons used a limited hangout as a pretext for war.
Kirk Cobain endorsed Donald Trump, in his suicide letter, on behalf of Gen X.


But, our own spy agencies are now repeatedly being accused of the hacking, against their own govt.

Notice the nature of the charges. It's not about her character, health, or worldview. It's about a technicality, pertaining to the handling of data.

Does this happen to be consequential, in the here-and-now, and is it the most consequential issue, of them all.

Would this tend to be a niche interest of our security apparatus.

Is their choice of candidate the best for the little guy, or would the implied, fascist, police state, and new Berlin Wall, tend to favor the intelligence community.

Thank you!

You need to watch it again then. She's laughing and bragging about how she got the rapist's sentence reduced.

"And children die in all wars" WOW. This wasn't during the wars, it was during the sanctions put on Iraq, which she supported and voted for. Of course, W and the Clinton's should all be rotting in the same cell.

She's clearly laughing and bragging about how she got the butcher's sentence reduced, not to mention the very dodgy circumstances involving the underwear. She knew he was guilty, she took the case, and laughed and bragged about how she got his sentence reduced. Be in denial all you like, but it's beyond hypocritical given that you call Trump a "predator" with zero evidence. If Trump had been a defense lawyer and laughed and bragged about how he got a child rapist's sentence reduced, I'm sure you'd be jumping to his defense like you are with Clinton

Yes, I was against the sanctions and the war, anyone who cannot see the carnage it's caused is seriously in denial. Consequences of letting him live? You realise when Saddam committed his worst crimes, the US increased its support for him? And the US supports far worse than him anyway. In the real world, we're past all the Team America stuff of "we did it cause we love democracy and we take the bad guys out". The US and the UK has supported and sold weapons to Saudi Arabia this year for them to be used to bomb schools and hospitals in Yemen. But I guess you turn a blind eye to such things while a Democrat is in office.

Trump has the advantage/disadvantage of never have served in political office and therefore has no political record. He seems to run his business mostly from a sales perspective. I'm not sure that will work as president.

Didn't turn out perfectly? That's it? Around a million people have died in Iraq because of the two phony wars. Then there's the horrendous destruction of Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza, all supported by Clinton. She had a choice, kill people or don't kill people, she chose her favorite in all cases. If anyone in the real world kills people or is an architect in murder, they can't just get away with "I made the wrong choice, oh well, no one's perfect".

I certainly found the reopening of the Clinton emails investigation, along with the publishing of a old investigation about Bill Clinton, suspect. That some peoples working for intelligence give support for a fascist like Trump wouldn't surprise me.

I'm trying to explain how it's not a choice between death and no death. It's a choice between allowing dictators to live, and conveniently ignoring the news of how many people they murder (unless like Al Quida they murder 2,996 Americans), or do something about it, and get s**t for the people that died as a result of your actions.

This appears to be an exceptionally risky gamble for the FBI.

Imagine if this announcement by James Comey does indeed sway the election to the point where Donald Trump wins... and nothing turns up in the reopened e-mail investigation...

In this case, the FBI would literally have rigged the election... And this would leave the FBI with a complete loss of political legitimacy at a time when trust in law enforcement is already at a 20-year low, especially among Democrats. It would make J. Edgar Hoover look like a footnote in comparison...

Things would get very, very ugly for US law enforcement... and probably bloody, as well...

This also creates a different headache: Since the credibility of the FBI now is completely dependent on finding dirt on Clinton... can they be trusted to handle the investigation impartially?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tment.html



this isn't just about the damn emails

Hillary has to go to jail

this is the biggest corruption scandal in the history; it involves the Democratic nominee for president and the sitting governor of Virginia