FBI reopens probe into Hillary Clinton's emails

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Gary A said:

 

I find it amusing how Comey went from the democrat's hero to a republican bloodhound. Which is it?

 

From the day after Comey's testimony to the House Inquisition Committee after the emails findings -- which were no findings -- Comey has gone off the deep end.

 

With less than two weeks to go Comey is all over the place for the Republican Party. 

 

Judge a man by his deeds and his misdeeds. And by the answer that Comey has clearly given to House Republicans when they pose the question in private, 'What have you done for me lately'. 

 

Comey's hubris is astounding. The coup attempt is both blatant and mad. 

[Boon Mee]

3 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

From the day after Comey's testimony to the House Inquisition Committee after the emails findings -- which were no findings -- Comey has gone off the deep end.

 

With less than two weeks to go Comey is all over the place for the Republican Party. 

 

Judge a man by his deeds and his misdeeds. And by the answer that Comey has clearly given to House Republicans when they pose the question in private, 'What have you done for me lately'. 

 

Comey's hubris is astounding. The coup attempt is both blatant and mad. 

The Marc Rich pardon details were released today as well after the Freedom of Information requests were finally granted. 

[Publicus]

4 hours ago, Gary A said:

It is becoming much more difficult to defend a vicious corrupt liar called Hillary, isn't it? Other than for amusement, it makes no sense to try to debate rabid democrats. They would vote for Hillary even if she were in prison where she belongs.

 

And here's another one firing up Old Sparky down there in the dungeon where Trump and His Detestables are prepping to do enhanced interrogation on HRC while Sparky spits off its flares. Gonna git her one way or another over there on the fascist right.

 

Not.

[Boon Mee]

3 minutes ago, Publicus said:

. Gonna git her one way or another 

 

 

She got herself bud - wake up and smell the coffee...

[Publicus]

3 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The Marc Rich pardon details were released today as well after the Freedom of Information requests were finally granted. 

 

Seven dayze before the election.

 

It's about the FBI Director having gone off the deep end and doing it in full public view.

[pattayalover]

we can cancel abortion and replace by adoption.
I have never understand why so many women abort when families are ready to pay a fortune to adopt a baby.

get a clue.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, pattayalover said:

we can cancel abortion and replace by adoption.
I have never understand why so many women abort when families are ready to pay a fortune to adopt a baby.

get a clue.

No. We don't want to go BACKWARDS to the days of coat hanger back alley clinics and so many women dying from that. 

[Boon Mee]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

No. We don't want to go BACKWARDS to the days of coat hanger back alley clinics and so many women dying from that. 

And we certainly do not want to abort late term pregnant mothers fetus's either...

[Publicus]

It's a related topic, to say adoption rather than abortion is a better way to go. With the low birth rate in advanced countries adoption might be a considered alternative. 

 

Apart from Donald Trump and his rightwhinge lunar orbiters, there is the fundamental difference between gender. It remains the woman's burden to suffer through nine months of it. We need always to reduce the burden and to alleviate it as best as possible. 

 

Abortion beyond a certain point of pregnancy does remain objectionable. A loss of life frankly.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

And we certainly do not want to abort late term pregnant mothers fetus's either...

That's a red herring and you know it.
The vast majority of abortions are nothing like that and there are strict regulations in place for special cases of later term abortions.

trump intends to kill Roe vs. Wade. He has said that EXPLICITLY. His method to pick far right wing supreme court justices.

That would also mean revoking MARRIAGE EQUALITY and no chance of revoking Citizens United (which Hillary Clinton is in favor of revoking). 

[Si Thea01]

24 minutes ago, Boon Mee said:

The Marc Rich pardon details were released today as well after the Freedom of Information requests were finally granted. 

 

20 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

Seven dayze before the election.

 

It's about the FBI Director having gone off the deep end and doing it in full public view.

 

Is that all you are able to say.  Mere words, no facts.  Seeing you know so much, it disappoints me that you have no in depth analytical response as to how and why this came about.  Or are you just waiting for someone from the HRC camp to come up with what you think is a reasonable attack on the fascist right so that you can put it out there on TVF and claim it as your own?  

Edited November 2, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Gary A]

28 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

And here's another one firing up Old Sparky down there in the dungeon where Trump and His Detestables are prepping to do enhanced interrogation on HRC while Sparky spits off its flares. Gonna git her one way or another over there on the fascist right.

 

Not.

 

So far the ultra corrupt Clinton Foundation has been pretty much ignored. I view this scam as being nearly as important and disgusting as the email lies. I remember Hillary saying that when they left the Whitehouse, they were broke. Just how did they become so wealthy since then.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

For your closing remark to be on mark, you'd have to demonstrate that the reporting is biased.

Donations may identify a person's (even a journalist) support of a candidate. It does not automatically imply biased reporting.

 

 

 

Go and watch CNN, ABC, Fox, and read the New York Times and Post, the Guardian and then comeback and tell us that one has to demonstrate that the reporting is biased.  Then there are the CNN panels, and paid contributors, 90 percent of who are critical of Trump and his campaign, smirk and laugh when they think they have found something that will hurt him and his campaign.

 

They yell, the females screech like banshees and that includes a couple of female hosts and all, including the male hosts, talk and yell together over the Trump supporters in an effort to get their point across and when they don't have a comeback, they cut the Trump supporters off.   Now after you have seen this then tell us that they are not biased.  They clearly demonstrate that themselves, no one on here has to demonstrate it for you.  

[Boon Mee]

John Podesta’s Best Friend At The DOJ Will Be In Charge Of The DOJ’s Probe Into Huma Abedin Emails. 

 

No conflict of interest there, eh?

 

Which means in less than 24 hours Crooked Hillary will be found totally innocent? 

 

“Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail,” Podesta wrote on Sept. 8, 2008 to Obama aide Cassandra Butts, according to emails hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account and posted by WikiLeaks.

 

 

[Rimmer]

Some baiting posts have been removed, also replies to them

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Go and watch CNN, ABC, Fox, and read the New York Times and Post, the Guardian and then comeback and tell us that one has to demonstrate that the reporting is biased.  Then there are the CNN panels, and paid contributors, 90 percent of who are critical of Trump and his campaign, smirk and laugh when they think they have found something that will hurt him and his campaign.

 

When Trump says things such as he doesn't understand why we don't use our nuclear weapons 'since we have them anyway', you wonder why reporting is critical of him?

 

How about this word salad:

 

Quote

Because we're about to go.  We lose it.  We are in the wrong direction, and maybe it's gone.  Supreme court justices, always remember that.  But so many different levels.  And when you see what happened with crooked Hillary today, it was a disaster.

 

Just look at that; he's a mental midget.  That deserves all the criticism is draws, and then some.

 

So many different levels!  Won't somebody think of the levels??

[Si Thea01]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

When Trump says things such as he doesn't understand why we don't use our nuclear weapons 'since we have them anyway', you wonder why reporting is critical of him?

 

How about this word salad:

 

 

Just look at that; he's a mental midget.  That deserves all the criticism is draws, and then some.

 

So many different levels!  Won't somebody think of the levels??

 

I have no problem with people being critical of him but there is a huge difference between bias and criticism.  Yes he has said some unhelpful things on quite a number of occasions but that is not what we were talking about here, it was about how biased the media is towards him.

 

Now as for being a mental midget, you're entitled to your opinion but how many mental midgets do you know who destroyed 16 true politicians and may well become the POTUS.  Also, over the years, as your so called mental midget, I would say  he has made more money then you will ever see in your lifetime. 

[Morch]

36 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Go and watch CNN, ABC, Fox, and read the New York Times and Post, the Guardian and then comeback and tell us that one has to demonstrate that the reporting is biased.  Then there are the CNN panels, and paid contributors, 90 percent of who are critical of Trump and his campaign, smirk and laugh when they think they have found something that will hurt him and his campaign.

 

They yell, the females screech like banshees and that includes a couple of female hosts and all, including the male hosts, talk and yell together over the Trump supporters in an effort to get their point across and when they don't have a comeback, they cut the Trump supporters off.   Now after you have seen this then tell us that they are not biased.  They clearly demonstrate that themselves, no one on here has to demonstrate it for you.  

 

As pointed out, Trump does provide most of the "ammunition" for those criticizing him. I think that if they weren't criticizing him they would not be doing their jobs. Bias is not about criticizing Trump, or even making fun of him (he's earned that). Bias would be no (or significantly less) negative comments, stories or reporting on HRC's campaign (or prior to that, on other primary candidates) for the sort of statements Trump makes.

 

When Trump says something like "lets build a wall", or "why can't we use nuclear weapons" - there's are no equivalent statements from the HRC campaign. Less by was of half-cooked future policies to discuss. With regard to the both candidates closets full of skeletons and cans of worms - I actually think both weren't seriously challenged on some issues. 

[attrayant]

Your justifications are laughable.  He's made a lot of money?  So has George Soros.  Does that qualify somebody to be president?  Pence is one of the poorest people in Congress.  By that criterion, I guess he's disqualified.

 

And you know what?  If Trump had simply invested his daddy's loan into some index funds that track the S&P500, he'd be worth five times what he is today and wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy six times.  Color me unimpressed by his alleged business acumen.

 

Quote

how many mental midgets do you know who destroyed 16 true politicians and may well become the POTUS

 

That tells me you weren't paying attention during the primary debates.  Almost no policy was discussed.  They spent the entire time throwing mud at each other.  Trump managed to get into the gutter and throw the most mud.  And don't forget the part where he bragged about his dick size.  How's that for classy?

[Usernames]

2 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

BREAKING: FBI JUST RELEASED HILLARY’S EMAIL INVESTIGATION ONLINE

 

The FBI released documents from their Clinton Email Investigation.

From the FBI website:

Hillary Rodham Clinton served as U.S. Secretary of State from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013. The FBI conducted an investigation into allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used during her tenure.

We're sure that's just the 'teaser' and much more incriminating material will be released soon.

 

Burn, Witch, Burn!

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

She got herself bud - wake up and smell the coffee...

 

Now parroting Kelly Anne Conway. She certainly has Trump wrapped around her little finger these past couple of days with his 'new', 'disciplined', 'on message' performances at his bear baiting parties across the nation. So she has you whipped also. I don't think I've read an original thought from you since the primaries. Just copied bits from fringe websites and campaign talking points.

 

What will we get tomorrow after Brietbart, Infowars and the Gatewaypundit have spent the day stamping out more cheap, disposable dog whistles.

 

This make believe email scandal is merely one more concocted and false outrage in a 30 year history of right wing attacks on the Clintons.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

 

Go and watch CNN, ABC, Fox, and read the New York Times and Post, the Guardian and then comeback and tell us that one has to demonstrate that the reporting is biased.  Then there are the CNN panels, and paid contributors, 90 percent of who are critical of Trump and his campaign, smirk and laugh when they think they have found something that will hurt him and his campaign.

 

They yell, the females screech like banshees and that includes a couple of female hosts and all, including the male hosts, talk and yell together over the Trump supporters in an effort to get their point across and when they don't have a comeback, they cut the Trump supporters off.   Now after you have seen this then tell us that they are not biased.  They clearly demonstrate that themselves, no one on here has to demonstrate it for you.  

 

This pile of nonsense is entirely subjective and clearly influenced by some deep personal issues about women. You see entirely what your bias allows you to see. That's fine except when you bother people and waste their time with such useless 'observations'.

 

Provide one objective assessment using a credible metric and valid data and statistical analysis and people might pay attention. I won't hold my breath on that.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

I have no problem with people being critical of him but there is a huge difference between bias and criticism.  Yes he has said some unhelpful things on quite a number of occasions but that is not what we were talking about here, it was about how biased the media is towards him.

 

Now as for being a mental midget, you're entitled to your opinion but how many mental midgets do you know who destroyed 16 true politicians and may well become the POTUS.  Also, over the years, as your so called mental midget, I would say  he has made more money then you will ever see in your lifetime. 

 

MSM in the 1950s were nothing more than stenographers of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) as he shred the Constitution and destroyed the lives of Americans.

 

This worse than Joe McCarthy guy Trump isn't getting the same conveyor belt free ride, nor should he. 

 

Marc Ambinder: “Here’s a tried-and-true creed, straight from Journalism 101: Journalists should never take sides. But how do you not take sides when one of those sides is so clearly wrong?”

 

“Another: Journalists should not characterize political candidates as liars. But what happens when political candidates base their entire campaigns on very persuasive lies?”

 

“Science journalists no longer cover anthropogenic climate change as an issue that’s subject to dispute. (What to do about it surely is; the fact of it is not.)

 

In the period of U.S. History and of the organic ontology of journalism in the USA, there was the pre-bellum Period of the Partisan Press. We've re-entered that period but in the Age of IT. Which means the partisan media are much more diverse and pervasive.

 

Learn it, live with it. Youse guyz on the reactionary right love the bad old dayze so much there shouldn't be anything in the current times for you to complain about. Except that the current times are, well, the current times. That is, now the MSM are not owned exclusively by white wealthy old Republican Protestant men. That's your fundamental gripe and nothing else. 

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, pattayalover said:

we can cancel abortion and replace by adoption.
I have never understand why so many women abort when families are ready to pay a fortune to adopt a baby.

get a clue.

 

The FBI announcement is about abortion?

[Publicus]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

The FBI announcement is about abortion?

 

Comey's crazy attempt to abort the pending election outcome maybe.

 

That would be about it however, as you note.

[Si Thea01]

6 minutes ago, attrayant said:

Your justifications are laughable.  He's made a lot of money?  So has George Soros.  Does that qualify somebody to be president?  Pence is one of the poorest people in Congress.  By that criterion, I guess he's disqualified.

 

And you know what?  If Trump had simply invested his daddy's loan into some index funds that track the S&P500, he'd be worth five times what he is today and wouldn't have had to declare bankruptcy six times.  Color me unimpressed by his alleged business acumen.

 

 

That tells me you weren't paying attention during the primary debates.  Almost no policy was discussed.  They spent the entire time throwing mud at each other.  Trump managed to get into the gutter and throw the most mud.  And don't forget the part where he bragged about his dick size.  How's that for classy?

 

 

Who gives a toss about Soros or Pence, we're not talking about them nor what Trump should have invested in or not invested in.  As I said, he has made more money than you will ever see and here you are giving advice on how he would have increased his fortune through investing in the stock market.  Now that's laughable considering you're not in his wealth league.

 

Daddy's loan, do you have a problem with that.  Parents normally help out their children if they are able to. As for his being bankrupt in the past, you have no idea as to how or why these came about, you just throwing mud like the others.  He is not bankrupt now than that is all that matters but like most of the others on here all you're doing is repeating what you've hear, nothing original and you wouldn't have a clue.so stop pretending you do.

 

Just shows how much attention you paid.  He brought out more Republicans to vote than anyone else in history of the GOP, so you're saying that because he threw the most dirt and did not discuss anything thing relevant or important to the voters, they voted for him just because he slung the most mud.   Another laughable and deplorable statement.  You said somewhere about unimpressed,  I would say more like unimpressive.

 

As for you last little ditty, this was brought about by Rubio and all Trump said, and holding up his hands, They aren't that little are they and he that had no problem.  Didn't say anything about a dick, that was the biased media read into it and all your doing is carrying it on, nothing original hey.

 

 

[Steely Dan]

 
As pointed out, Trump does provide most of the "ammunition" for those criticizing him. I think that if they weren't criticizing him they would not be doing their jobs. Bias is not about criticizing Trump, or even making fun of him (he's earned that). Bias would be no (or significantly less) negative comments, stories or reporting on HRC's campaign (or prior to that, on other primary candidates) for the sort of statements Trump makes.
 
When Trump says something like "lets build a wall", or "why can't we use nuclear weapons" - there's are no equivalent statements from the HRC campaign. Less by was of half-cooked future policies to discuss. With regard to the both candidates closets full of skeletons and cans of worms - I actually think both weren't seriously challenged on some issues. 

I suggest you read the Wikileaks Podesta emails and then come back and comment on the massive collusion between the press and Clinton campaign.Trump may be his own worst enemy in what he says, but Clinton is in what she has done, which never gets reported or investigated by the MSM. It's as if the election is happening in glorious isolation from Clinton's past yet has no problem obsessing on a ten year old video with Trump saying something vulgar.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, Publicus said:

 

MSM in the 1950s were nothing more than stenographers of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) as he shred the Constitution and destroyed the lives of Americans.

 

This worse than Joe McCarthy guy Trump isn't getting the same conveyor belt free ride, nor should he. 

 

Marc Ambinder: “Here’s a tried-and-true creed, straight from Journalism 101: Journalists should never take sides. But how do you not take sides when one of those sides is so clearly wrong?”

 

“Another: Journalists should not characterize political candidates as liars. But what happens when political candidates base their entire campaigns on very persuasive lies?”

 

“Science journalists no longer cover anthropogenic climate change as an issue that’s subject to dispute. (What to do about it surely is; the fact of it is not.)

 

In the period of U.S. History and of the organic ontology of journalism in the USA, there was the pre-bellum Period of the Partisan Press. We've re-entered that period but in the Age of IT. Which means the partisan media are much more diverse and pervasive.

 

Learn it, live with it. Youse guyz on the reactionary right love the bad old dayze so much there shouldn't be anything in the current times for you to complain about. Except that the current times are, well, the current times. That is, now the MSM are not owned exclusively by white wealthy old Republican Protestant men. That's your fundamental gripe and nothing else. 

 

What in the hell you are on about and what are you on?  I only have one gripe and that is having to put up with such a know all, know nothing.  All you can you is cut and paste or repeat most of what others have said already.  Reminds of a word that was used against Mrs Trump.  You live with it as I don't have to read this crap any longer.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Si Thea01

[Linzz]

9 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

A New Zealander arguing US criminal law with an American lawyer. Joined by a Brit UKIP'er and an Australian former warehouse guard. Getting their clocks cleaned. Then whining about the elitism of someone who knows something that they don't.

 

Just keep on celebrating ignorance. It is the Trump way. Something is true just by virtue of the fact that it was taken from some right wing website, which is, of course, the only thing that non Americans have to go on since they are not actually living there or part of the culture. Just part of the Culture Wars fighting diversity, inclusivity and multiculturalism.

 

Bill Maher Urges Donald Trump to ‘Stop Whining Like a Little Bitch

http://www.thewrap.com/bill-maher-donald-trump-whiny-little-bitch/

 

Goes for his fanboys too.

 

Another snobby reply. Whatever America does affects the rest of the world so I will continue my  right to comment about America at will regardless of your precious and self righteous nationalistic ideology.

 

Additionally I never "argued US criminal law" as you accused me of since I am not in a position to do so, but I do recognize repetitive LW theological cliches and patronizing condescension of other TVF members such as yours when I see it.

[JHolmesJr]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

trump is much, much worse and if Hill is out of the picture, we have a very capable and qualified V.P.

 

 

good to see a long overdue, if lame, admission that her time might be at an end….finally.