FBI Has Found ‘No Criminal Wrongdoing’ in Hillary Clinton Email ‘Investigation’

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm guessing way more than that because I can't imagine trump being viewed favorably compared to romney with "the women."

I bet every time Trump poses with a taco, he'll get 1% of the minority vote. That's a lot of posing with tacos!

[Dartz1979]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-repor...investigation/

its the powers that be. and new world order they are in cohoots with it all.

[Ghostpanther]

There was a lot going on, and for one thing Carter's approval rating was through the floor. We have no incumbent this time.

That is true. But there is a lot going on now too. Different stuff granted, but still a lot of stuff people are upset about. The main reason Trump has done so well. And the other candidates failed to tap into.

[Cthulhu 2020]

That is true. But there is a lot going on now too. Different stuff granted, but still a lot of stuff people are upset about. The main reason Trump has done so well. And the other candidates failed to tap into.

I mean you did prove your point, Reagan did overcome crazy polling disadvantage, so you were right there. But as the article stated, polling tech and methods were a lot less accurate back then as well. Trump is losing popularity at the moment while Reagan was gaining it. Reagan was a nobody that everyone started to love all of a sudden and who busted onto the scene with a big win. Trump has been wildly unpopular for a long time now, and pretty much everyone knows about his failed business ventures.

I suspect they were waiting for the general election to whip all the dirt on Trump out, but nobody really has yet to leverage the fact that he's been convicted of fraud recently, has been the subject of over 150 investigations and lawsuits, lost many of them. He regularly lied to investors and used some very underhanded tactics to swindle people out of their money.

[Ghostpanther]

I'm guessing way more than that because I can't imagine trump being viewed favorably compared to romney with "the women."

I have said this before and I guess I need to keep repeating it, " I do not have confidence Trump can win. " In fact, he was not my pick to be the GOP candidate. So you are correct, he has a lot to win over and it may be too big of a task. But, stranger things have happened. Very few thought he had any chance back in June of 2015 to win the GOP primary.

[Pangean]

I bet every time Trump poses with a taco, he'll get 1% of the minority vote. That's a lot of posing with tacos!

Every time Trump poses with a taco a burrito get its wings..or cheese sauce. I cant remember which.

[Ghostpanther]

I mean you did prove your point, Reagan did overcome crazy polling disadvantage, so you were right there. But as the article stated, polling tech and methods were a lot less accurate back then as well. Trump is losing popularity at the moment while Reagan was gaining it. Reagan was a nobody that everyone started to love all of a sudden and who busted onto the scene with a big win. Trump has been wildly unpopular for a long time now, and pretty much everyone knows about his failed business ventures.

I suspect they were waiting for the general election to whip all the dirt on Trump out, but nobody really has yet to leverage the fact that he's been convicted of fraud recently, has been the subject of over 150 investigations and lawsuits, lost many of them. He regularly lied to investors and used some very underhanded tactics to swindle people out of their money.

Some good points. Not sure I agree with the bolded part however. Some very recent so called modern polls have been pretty far off. :P

[Poopymonster]

That is true. But there is a lot going on now too. Different stuff granted, but still a lot of stuff people are upset about. The main reason Trump has done so well. And the other candidates failed to tap into.

Part of that is the other candidates themselves. Another Bush. Theocratic zodiac killer. A Teahadist who couldn't win his own state. A surgeon with religious tourettes. A guy who hugged the black guy ruining the white house. A semi sane guy who couldn't get support because HE SOUNDED FUCKING SANE.

"Please pick up the turd by the clean end" seems to define this political cycle.

[therayeffect]

I thought this thread was about the Clinton Email scandal. I really want to know if there's truth behind the simple liability of the threat to security and not about intent. I dealt with secure information and I just don't see how in the hell I wouldn't be in jail for the shit she pulled.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Some good points. Not sure I agree with the bolded part however. Some very recent so called modern polls have been pretty far off. :P

Ramussen has notoriously been inaccurate, all of the others pretty much, for the most part, agree with each other and fall within the margin of error. When people talk about inaccurate polls, they think of things like the polls that predicted Romney victories, but again, those polls showed him with a 2-3 point lead, which is within the margin of error. When Obama beat him by 3 points, that was still within the margin of error.

[Ghostpanther]

Part of that is the other candidates themselves. Another Bush. Theocratic zodiac killer. A Teahadist who couldn't win his own state. A surgeon with religious tourettes. A guy who hugged the black guy ruining the white house. A semi sane guy who couldn't get support because HE SOUNDED FUCKING SANE.

"Please pick up the turd by the clean end" seems to define this political cycle.

I agree about Bush and Cruz is too conservative to win now anyway. The demographics of this country has changed too much. There were some good other candidates however. You may not like them, but I did. Such as Rubio and Kasich.

- - - Updated - - -

Ramussen has notoriously been inaccurate, all of the others pretty much, for the most part, agree with each other and fall within the margin of error. When people talk about inaccurate polls, they think of things like the polls that predicted Romney victories, but again, those polls showed him with a 2-3 point lead, which is within the margin of error. When Obama beat him by 3 points, that was still within the margin of error.

Not just them. You forgot the polling which showed Hillary leading by a good margin in Indiana and Michigan before the primary vote? And even Trump won his last states by a much better % than the polls showed.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought this thread was about the Clinton Email scandal. I really want to know if there's truth behind the simple liability of the threat to security and not about intent. I dealt with secure information and I just don't see how in the hell I wouldn't be in jail for the shit she pulled.

It is and it has a lot to do with the general election overall. Which is why it may seem to be some off topic posts, they are not really.

[Orbitus]

its the powers that be. and new world order they are in cohoots with it all.

Take the tinfoil hat off, it is strangling what is left of your brain.

[Breccia]

First, it wasn't Bush nor Cheney ... it was some low level staffers.

Second, not even close to the same level of concern. Clinton's use of a private server with confirmed Top Secret emails on it vs low level staffers improperly sending some day to day non-classified emails.

First, and yes I'm using the same kind of rhetoric here the GOP is using against Clinton, we can't be sure. The RNC, who hosted the email server, deleted a lot of them. About a million. Wups!

Second, there were confirmed emails from "low-level staffers" Karl Rove, Andrew Card (White House Chief of Staff) and Ken Mehlman (White House Director of Political Affairs). And eighty-five other people, some in the office of the Vice President. So, not Cheney...maybe, but people on his staff, proven.

Third, it is exactly the same thing. Besides anything that might have been done with the emails that were deleted, the remaining emails were definitely connected to the (unprecedented) firings of 7 US Attorneys to solidify A.G Gonzalez's hold on the DOJ, and they also were connected to the public outing of CIA agent Valarie Plame, in direct revenge to her contradiction of the uranium story Bush told the world about Iraq.

Nothing was ever done by (big surprise) Attorney General Gonzales. There were some Senate followups but nothing came of it. Probably because there wasn't enough evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

[Poopymonster]

First, and yes I'm using the same kind of rhetoric here the GOP is using against Clinton, we can't be sure. The RNC, who hosted the email server, deleted a lot of them. About a million. Wups!

Second, there were confirmed emails from "low-level staffers" Karl Rove, Andrew Card (White House Chief of Staff) and Ken Mehlman (White House Director of Political Affairs). And eighty-five other people, some in the office of the Vice President. So, not Cheney...maybe, but people on his staff, proven.

Third, it is exactly the same thing. Besides anything that might have been done with the emails that were deleted, the remaining emails were definitely connected to the (unprecedented) firings of 7 US Attorneys to solidify A.G Gonzalez's hold on the DOJ, and they also were connected to the public outing of CIA agent Valarie Plame, in direct revenge to her contradiction of the uranium story Bush told the world about Iraq.

Nothing was ever done by (big surprise) Attorney General Gonzales. There were some Senate followups but nothing came of it. Probably because there wasn't enough evidence of intentional wrongdoing.

... none of that says what I want to hear, so another investgation!

[tj119]

LOL the answer would be the exact same, guilty or not they were never going to admit she did anything wrong.

[Ripster42]

I have said this before and I guess I need to keep repeating it, " I do not have confidence Trump can win. " In fact, he was not my pick to be the GOP candidate. So you are correct, he has a lot to win over and it may be too big of a task. But, stranger things have happened. Very few thought he had any chance back in June of 2015 to win the GOP primary.

That's definitely true. I think that got trump a lot of "underdog" votes too.

[GreenJesus]

HAHAAH what I find funny is that the FBI hasn't released any information, but an correspondent for CNN said "there isn't any wrongdoing".. Yeh.. the Clinton News Network says there is nothing wrong. I'll believe it when it comes from the mouths of the FBI and the judge. The reason it is taking so long is because they need full-proof evidence that Hillary's lawyers can't shrug off as "I had no knowledge' or 'O you mean wipe the server with like a cloth or something?" You can't rush a case that involves the clintons with such an extensive case as this.

[Pangean]

I have said this before and I guess I need to keep repeating it, " I do not have confidence Trump can win. " In fact, he was not my pick to be the GOP candidate. So you are correct, he has a lot to win over and it may be too big of a task. But, stranger things have happened. Very few thought he had any chance back in June of 2015 to win the GOP primary.

It's ok Cheney has come out and endorsed him. Trump just locked up the election with the War criminal GOP faction.

[Felya]

So I was wrong. He won 17% of it. Still not enough. Maybe the 3% extra would have helped. lol. Seems he is going to need more than 20%.

I think the race is far closer than polls represent. No one really knows what Trump's rhetoric will do to minority voters or just voters in general. Volatility is naturally hard to predict... I thought Romney was going to win...

[Edge-]

I think the race is far closer than polls represent. No one really knows what Trump's rhetoric will do to minority voters or just voters in general. Volatility is naturally hard to predict... I thought Romney was going to win...

Except that, you know, all the polling consistently shows that he performs very poorly with minorities. And with women.

I mean, you can say "Nobody knows!" but between polling and primary voting data pretty much everyone knows.