A nice article from a real news source.

[Estonut]

Tell me why Trump is a misogynist and Bill Clinton is not. Several women have alleged various degrees of sexual assault against both of them. Both deny the allegations, but there is concrete evidence that Clinton lied about it.

There is no evidence that Bill Clinton lied when he denied sexual assault allegations. Inappropriate consensual relationships may be icky and they may give rise to civil liability, but they are not sexual assault. And unless the 23rd Amendment was repealed while I wasn't looking, it doesn't really matter because Bill Clinton is ineligible to become President, and he's not running anyway.

Trump, on the other hand, demonstrably lies about, well, pretty much everything. He is on camera denying having said things that he said on camera. He is also on tape admitting (corroborated by, at last count, a dozen women) making unwelcome physical contact with women of a sexual nature, which is pretty much the textbook definition of sexual assault. This isn't close. --Bob

Why is it that "There is no evidence that Bill Clinton lied when he denied sexual assault allegations," yet "(Trump) is also on tape admitting (corroborated by, at last count, a dozen women) making unwelcome physical contact with women of a sexual nature?" So dozens of accusers of Clinton are "no evidence," while dozens of accusers of Trump are "corroboration?"

[itsthemanheis]

Trump has attacked disabled people over the years, going back to the 80s, and that's to me his worst attribute.

[flockofseagulls104]

Flock wrote:



Flock, I dunno if that "not voting for her" remark was directed solely at SSS, but I'll reply anyway because I did vote FOR Hillary, just as I said I would two years ago when I declared myself to be "ready for Hillary."

As for voting against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, that was a bonus I'd never anticipated.

I'm looking forward to a Hillary administration and taking back the Senate from a do-nothing bunch whose platform's most visible plank seems to be based on obstructing anything a Democrat proposes.

Just a couple of questions:

So are you just not informed of all the corruption that has been exposed by wikileaks in the democrat party and media in general, and on the Clintons in particular, or do you just not care?

Are you comfortable in the fact that if she is elected, this evidence will not go away, and her administration will be plagued with it from day one?

Tell me why Trump is a misogynist and Bill Clinton is not. Several women have alleged various degrees of sexual assault against both of them. Both deny the allegations, but there is concrete evidence that Clinton lied about it. Were you OK with Clinton as the President and why would having Trump as President be different in this respect?

I am informed about as much of it as time allows.

The "evidence" will go away because it will no longer make a difference. The only reason these incomplete or out of context blurbs keep coming up now is because it serves a Republican need to distract and misinform. From the third debate: "Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy."

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with my assertion that I get to vote against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, a bonus I'd never anticipated.

It's difficult to keep up with all that's going on, and the major media is doing it's best to keep things under wraps for Hillary, but all this crap seems to be about to hit the fan. If she's elected, it has the potential to make Watergate look like a walk in the park.

[Bob Juch]

Just a couple of questions:

So are you just not informed of all the corruption that has been exposed by wikileaks in the democrat party and media in general, and on the Clintons in particular, or do you just not care?

Are you comfortable in the fact that if she is elected, this evidence will not go away, and her administration will be plagued with it from day one?

Tell me why Trump is a misogynist and Bill Clinton is not. Several women have alleged various degrees of sexual assault against both of them. Both deny the allegations, but there is concrete evidence that Clinton lied about it. Were you OK with Clinton as the President and why would having Trump as President be different in this respect?

I am informed about as much of it as time allows.

The "evidence" will go away because it will no longer make a difference. The only reason these incomplete or out of context blurbs keep coming up now is because it serves a Republican need to distract and misinform. From the third debate: "Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy."

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with my assertion that I get to vote against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, a bonus I'd never anticipated.

It's difficult to keep up with all that's going on, and the major media is doing it's best to keep things under wraps for Hillary, but all this crap seems to be about to hit the fan. If she's elected, it has the potential to make Watergate look like a walk in the park.

No, Trump's rape lawsuit and Trump U lawsuit would make Watergate look like a walk in the park. Forget about the other 3000 lawsuits.

[flockofseagulls104]

I am informed about as much of it as time allows.

The "evidence" will go away because it will no longer make a difference. The only reason these incomplete or out of context blurbs keep coming up now is because it serves a Republican need to distract and misinform. From the third debate: "Well, if you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy."

Bill Clinton has nothing to do with my assertion that I get to vote against that misogynistic cheater of small business owners, a bonus I'd never anticipated.

It's difficult to keep up with all that's going on, and the major media is doing it's best to keep things under wraps for Hillary, but all this crap seems to be about to hit the fan. If she's elected, it has the potential to make Watergate look like a walk in the park.

No, Trump's rape lawsuit and Trump U lawsuit would make Watergate look like a walk in the park. Forget about the other 3000 lawsuits.

Well here's the deal. If this Hillary email and the Clinton, Inc stuff does blow up, you democrats will definitely have a rude awakening. If you can't see the corruption in your party, in the Clintons and in the mainstream media that is right in front of your eyes right now, it will hit you on the head when the indictments start and the media will have to start making excuses why they covered for the Clintons for so long. I just wish the republicans had offered a palatable alternative.

[silverscreenselect]

Well here's the deal. If this Hillary email and the Clinton, Inc stuff does blow up, you democrats will definitely have a rude awakening. If you can't see the corruption in your party, in the Clintons and in the mainstream media that is right in front of your eyes right now, it will hit you on the head when the indictments start and the media will have to start making excuses why they covered for the Clintons for so long. I just wish the republicans had offered a palatable alternative.

The problem, flock, is that you could have just as easily given this exact same speech every year since 1992... just substitute "Vince Foster" or "Whitewater" or "Benghazi" for "e-mail" and the story's the same.

Except

IT .... NEVER .... DOES ..... BLOW ..... UP ......

It's not that people like the Bobs and I "can't see the corruption," it's that every law enforcement agency in the country that's ever investigated the Clintons hasn't been able to see the corruption, at least to the extent that they can find credible evidence rather than innuendo, rumors, and flat-out lies.

[jarnon]

I just read two conflicting stories about Comey in Haaretz, the leading Israeli left-wing paper. One says that FBI agents in New York, who were investigating Weiner and hate the Clintons, were leaking facts about their investigation to the Trump campaign. If that's true, Comey had to make the investigation public, or else he'd be up a creek when it leaked. No less a source than Giuliani confirmed that the Trump campaign was talking to FBI agents. According to the other story, Comey had a chip on his shoulder ever since President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich on his last day in office. Comey had been hunting Rich until then. We'll probably never know how much of all these stories is true, no matter who wins the election.

[BackInTex]

I wonder why she would do this?

Hillary Clinton forwards classified email to Chelsea

The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain, entitled “Update,” started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as “Confidential,” was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds.”

And why use pseudonyms if you aren't doing something wrong?

Too bad the content is redacted. If would likely give insight into WHY Hillary forwarded to Chelsea under a pseudonym. Perhaps Hillary will make that public. <crickets>

[Bob Juch]

I wonder why she would do this?

Hillary Clinton forwards classified email to Chelsea

The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain, entitled “Update,” started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as “Confidential,” was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds.”

And why use pseudonyms if you aren't doing something wrong?

Too bad the content is redacted. If would likely give insight into WHY Hillary forwarded to Chelsea under a pseudonym. Perhaps Hillary will make that public. <crickets>

What proof is there that Chelsea used the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds"?

[Bob78164]

I wonder why she would do this?

Hillary Clinton forwards classified email to Chelsea

The Dec. 20, 2009 email chain, entitled “Update,” started with a message from Michael Froman, who served as a deputy assistant to President Obama and deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

The email, which is redacted because it contains information classified as “Confidential,” was sent to Jake Sullivan, Clinton’s foreign policy adivser at the State Department, and several Obama aides. Sullivan sent it to Hillary Clinton who then forwarded it to Chelsea, who emailed under the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds.”

And why use pseudonyms if you aren't doing something wrong?

Too bad the content is redacted. If would likely give insight into WHY Hillary forwarded to Chelsea under a pseudonym. Perhaps Hillary will make that public. <crickets>

What proof is there that Chelsea used the pseudonym “Diane Reynolds"?

That's well established by a number of news stories. It's a pseudonym she often used when checking into a hotel.

Obviously we need to keep a serial e-mailer out of the Oval Office so it can be occupied by a President who has openly invited a foreign power to interfere with our elections. --Bob

[jarnon]

Here's a surprising email exchange between Hillary and Huma:

Clinton had asked about Amitabh Bachchan, leaked emails show

As we all know, Bachchan is the host of Indian Millionaire.

Bet you didn't expect an on-topic post here!

[BackInTex]

Obviously we need to keep a serial e-mailer out of the Oval Office so it can be occupied by a President who has openly invited a foreign power to interfere with our elections. --Bob

You can dismiss the seriousness of the situation as "serial e-mailing". That is like calling Mata Hari a mouthy entertainer.

[Estonut]

Obviously we need to keep a serial e-mailer out of the Oval Office so it can be occupied by a President who has openly invited a foreign power to interfere with our elections.

When did Trump do this? Please cite. SNL doesn't count.

[silverscreenselect]

Obviously we need to keep a serial e-mailer out of the Oval Office so it can be occupied by a President who has openly invited a foreign power to interfere with our elections.

When did Trump do this? Please cite. SNL doesn't count.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/27/politics/ ... y-clinton/

Key quote:

"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press," Trump said during a news conference in Florida.

"They probably have them. I'd like to have them released," he continued. "Now, if Russia or China or any other country has those e-mails, I mean, to be honest with you, I'd love to see them."

[Bob78164]

Obviously we need to keep a serial e-mailer out of the Oval Office so it can be occupied by a President who has openly invited a foreign power to interfere with our elections. --Bob

You can dismiss the seriousness of the situation as "serial e-mailing". That is like calling Mata Hari a mouthy entertainer.

I'm doing so because I have a friend and college roommate who has worked for DoD (directly or as a civilian consultant) his whole career. He's got the clearance to know what's going on. He's told me in no uncertain terms that there is no "there" there. This is a turf battle about classification policy between State and the intelligence community.

Now active FBI agents leaking information in order to affect a campaign -- that's dangerous. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Comey says new e-mails don't change FBI's recommendations

In the words of that distinguished political scholar Gomer Pyle: "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"