Final debate

[MattRoxx]

I didn't say Hillary should be DQ'd, and I also said her accusing (finger pointing) Trump is fine. My focus, and point was her doing it to the leader of Russia, and blaming Russia.
She is essentially building the foundation to alienate what should be a powerful ally. Its both dangerous and hardly a peaceful move.

The woman is a globalist, seeking amnesty , is threat to national security. Then you have Trump who is "not nice". Regardless how you see Trump for having an ego, calling someone fat or whatever, he clearly wants the best for America and has some very good ideas.

He's a jerk who ignores the people that know what they're talking about. It's partially why he was out-campaigned.

Trump's refusal to accept intelligence briefing on Russia stuns expertsTrump's refusal to accept intelligence briefing on Russia stuns experts}[b
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...1014-story.html

Former senior U.S. national security officials are dismayed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's repeated refusal to accept the judgment of intelligence professionals that Russia stole files from the Democratic National Committee computers in an effort to influence the U.S. election.

The former officials, who have served presidents in both parties, say they were bewildered when Trump cast doubt on Russia's role after receiving a classified briefing on the subject and again after an unusually blunt statement from U.S. agencies saying they were "confident" that Moscow had orchestrated the attacks.

"It defies logic," retired Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency, said of Trump's pronouncements.

Trump has assured supporters that, if elected, he would surround himself with experts on defense and foreign affairs, where he has little experience. But when it comes to Russia, he has made it clear that he is not listening to intelligence officials, the former officials said.

"He seems to ignore their advice," Hayden said. "Why would you assume this would change when he is in office?"

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Several former intelligence officials interviewed this week believe that Trump is either willfully disputing intelligence assessments, has a blind spot on Russia, or perhaps doesn't understand the nonpartisan traditions and approach of intelligence professionals.

In the first debate, after intelligence and congressional officials were quoted saying that Russia almost certainly broke into the DNC computers, Trump said: "I don't think anybody knows it was Russia that broke into the DNC. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"

During the second presidential debate, Trump ignored what a U.S. government official said the candidate learned in a private intelligence briefing: that government officials were certain Russia hacked the DNC. That conclusion was followed by a public and unequivocal announcement by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security that Russia was to blame.

"Maybe there is no hacking," Trump said during that debate.

"I don't recall a previous candidate saying they didn't believe" the information from an intelligence briefing, said John Rizzo, a former CIA lawyer who served under seven presidents and became the agency's acting general counsel. "These are career people. They aren't administration officials. What does that do to their morale and credibility?"

Former acting CIA director John MacLaughlin said all previous candidates took the briefings to heart.

"In my experience, candidates have taken into the account the information they have received and modulated their comments," he said. Trump, on the other hand, "is playing politics. He's trying to diminish the impression people have that [a Russian hack of the DNC] somehow helps his cause."

On Thursday, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said information she received has led her to conclude that Russia is attempting "to fix this election." She called on Trump and elected officials from both parties "to vocally and forcefully reject these efforts."

Trump has consistently adopted positions likely to find favor with the Kremlin. He has, for instance, criticized NATO allies for not paying their fair share and defended Russian President Vladimir Putin's human rights record.

"It's remarkable that he's refused to say an unkind syllable about Vladimir Putin," Hayden said. "He contorts himself not to criticize Putin."

Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, said in the vice-presidential debate last week that the United States should "use military force" against the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Trump disagreed. Rather than challenge Assad and his Russian ally, Trump said in the second debate, the United States should be working with them against the Islamic State. "Assad is killing ISIS. Russia is killing ISIS. Iran is killing ISIS," he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State. Russia and Syria have mostly been targeting opposition groups as well as civilians trapped in Aleppo - not the Islamic State.

"That's the Syrian, Russia, Iranian narrative," Hayden said of Trump's assertions.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

In that case, the equivalency would be this:

It's a lot more important what Trump's sexual accusers say that happened, than questioning their timing and motivation.

If your premise makes her guilty of the e-mails, then Trump is guilty of sexual assault.

No, that's not a rational comparison at all. What is in the emails are facts of the matter, what accusers say are accusations with no proof.

We already know she and her cronies are guilty of the emails, the proof is out there and they are not denying it. They are only trying to deflect attention away from the content by raising suspicion against the Russians. It's quite obvious America isn't buying their bait and switch based on HRC's numbers slipping daily.

 

[fuji]

No, that's not a rational comparison at all. What is in the emails are facts of the matter, what accusers say are accusations with no proof.

We already know she and her cronies are guilty of the emails, the proof is out there and they are not denying it. They are only trying to deflect attention away from the content by raising suspicion against the Russians. It's quite obvious America isn't buying their bait and switch based on HRC's numbers slipping daily.

In fact we already know that she ISN'T guilty.

We have heard that directly from the FBI.

It was also obvious. Unless you can find an unauthorized person who got classified information there's nothing illegal about what she did. The FBI called it careless because she created a POSSIBILITY of unauthorized access, but explicitly said they found no evidence of unauthorized access.

Without evidence of unauthorized access there's no crime.

Which is what the FBI director has told you, but because the truth isn't convenient for your political agenda you refuse to believe him.

 

[OnTheWayOut]

In fact we already know that she ISN'T guilty.

We have heard that directly from the FBI.

It was also obvious. Unless you can find an unauthorized person who got classified information there's nothing illegal about what she did. The FBI called it careless because she created a POSSIBILITY of unauthorized access, but explicitly said they found no evidence of unauthorized access.

Without evidence of unauthorized access there's no crime.

Which is what the FBI director has told you, but because the truth isn't convenient for your political agenda you refuse to believe him.

We're not even talking about the same thing here. You are talking about the dead point of her deleting emails, I am talking about the content of those emails. Whether she deleted them or not has no bearing on the content, which she and her folks do not dispute.

 

[Butler1000]

Oh I see, the woman wearing the niquab was paid to incite violence. Trump said trust me it is true, so I believe it.

Perhaps not her. But others were. So you can't deflect this. It's been admitted and the cutouts clensed. But it happened and people were paid to incite. For all we know one was paid to assault the other by the DNC.

The fact they were paying is enough to throw suspicion on every incident.

 

[Butler1000]

In fact we already know that she ISN'T guilty.

We have heard that directly from the FBI.

It was also obvious. Unless you can find an unauthorized person who got classified information there's nothing illegal about what she did. The FBI called it careless because she created a POSSIBILITY of unauthorized access, but explicitly said they found no evidence of unauthorized access.

Without evidence of unauthorized access there's no crime.

Which is what the FBI director has told you, but because the truth isn't convenient for your political agenda you refuse to believe him.

Actually he felt they couldn't win the case. Mostly due to her erasing the records of who had access to the emails and the traffic involved. That and who she is. Which is the point. One set of rules for her, one set for the serfs.

 

[SuperCharge]

Actually he felt they couldn't win the case. Mostly due to her erasing the records of who had access to the emails and the traffic involved. That and who she is. Which is the point. One set of rules for her, one set for the serfs.

Comey also said no prosecutor would take the case, but the prosecutor he was referring to was Loretta Lynch DOJ, who, surprisingly, had a meeting with Bill Clinton a few days before they were to make a ruling on whether or not to charge her. Nothing suspicious or a conflict of interest here lol.

 

[fuji]

We're not even talking about the same thing here. You are talking about the dead point of her deleting emails, I am talking about the content of those emails. Whether she deleted them or not has no bearing on the content, which she and her folks do not dispute.

Nothing in the content of the emails was illegal.

 

[fuji]

Actually he felt they couldn't win the case. Mostly due to her erasing the records of who had access to the emails and the traffic involved. That and who she is. Which is the point. One set of rules for her, one set for the serfs.

Actually the same innocent until proven guilty rule applies to absolutely everybody, and you have no reason whatsoever to think she is anything but innocent.

You WISH for different facts because you dislike her politics but that's just you losing your objectivity.

 

[fuji]

Comey also said no prosecutor would take the case, but the prosecutor he was referring to was Loretta Lynch DOJ, who, surprisingly, had a meeting with Bill Clinton a few days before they were to make a ruling on whether or not to charge her. Nothing suspicious or a conflict of interest here lol.

No prosecutor would take the case because there was no case. You are beating this dead horse because you don't like her politics. Like Butler you have lost your objectivity.

 

[Smallcock]

The fact that the FBI is not investigating Project Veritas further shows that the intelligence agencies are corrupt and in the bag for Clinton. Such is the powerful reach of the political elites.

 

[Smallcock]

http://projectveritas.com/

 

[OnTheWayOut]

Nothing in the content of the emails was illegal.

We'll see about that ............obviously you have not read any of them.

 

[Frankfooter]

The fact that the FBI is not investigating Project Veritas further shows that the intelligence agencies are corrupt and in the bag for Clinton. Such is the powerful reach of the political elites.

Its so sad that a plucky billionaire reality star can't buy his way into the system, isn't it?

 

[fuji]

We'll see about that ............obviously you have not read any of them.

Sure I have, they've been endlessly pasted here by the Breitbart zombies, and none of them reveal anything criminal.

You just wish otherwise since you dislike Clinton.

 

[fuji]

The fact that the FBI is not investigating Project Veritas further shows that the intelligence agencies are corrupt and in the bag for Clinton. Such is the powerful reach of the political elites.

Bullshit. You are just sore that your got is losing and instead of admitting he's unpopular you are proposing some massive conspiracy. Whole world is in on a giant plot.

Ridiculous bullshit from a sore loser.