Hillary Clinton welcomes Wasserman-Schultz to campaign as ‘honorary chair’

[cubby]

Yeah, instead of simple explanation, we can think of an elaborate plot, with no evidence, that explains it all. Maybe aliens fabricated it all, ooorrrrrrr god ...

Well, the simple explanation, the one that you Trumpers continue to ignore, is that no charges ever came of it - which is another way of saying innocent. If you don't buy that, then Trump is under investigation for a number of things, and he's paid off another number of state AG's to avoid fraud charges.

But you can't have it both ways. Either innocent until proven guilty or Trump has done 10 times worse and we don't even have his tax records or any other substantial financial documentation.

Your choice.

[Stonecloak]

And now its crashing down on them

It certainly is, but don't underestimate the power of ignorance. We'll see we're it goes from here, because the media is in full damage control mode.

[Repefe]

Well, the simple explanation, the one that you Trumpers continue to ignore, is that no charges ever came of it - which is another way of saying innocent. If you don't buy that, then Trump is under investigation for a number of things, and he's paid off another number of state AG's to avoid fraud charges.

But you can't have it both ways. Either innocent until proven guilty or Trump has done 10 times worse and we don't even have his tax records or any other substantial financial documentation.

Your choice.

What do you mean you Trumpers I am no such thing. All I am saying is that Hillary stinks more than any other candidate and she stinks in the worst possible way. There are plenty of ppl found not guilty in many different kind of cases. They act immoral, exploit law loopholes, or straight bribe and intimidate ppl to be proven innocent. In the face of law, they keep clean slide. Does not mean a common sense will find them innocent. And there is difference of severity of a crime as well. If you violate law as a businessman, it's one thing, you are the businessman against the state ... if you violate it in service of government, it's much more severe, you are the protector against the criminals. How can anyone trust you in any politician position, if common sense suggests you are corrupted and prone to cooperate with criminals in these positions.

[mvaliz]

Not by me it wasnt. I dont agree with much of anything that Bernie stands for, but Im just as pissed if not more so that he got screwed as I am about Trump almost getting screwed because they succeeded in screwing Bernie

Bullshit you care... you're just a Donald Dump puppet failing to try to coerce Bernie supporters to Dump's side... you've shown multiple times in these forums that you don't give two damn shits about any "Dirty regressive Liberals" (your words, not mine) out there.

[cubby]

What do you mean you Trumpers I am no such thing. All I am saying is that Hillary stinks more than any other candidate and she stinks in the worst possible way. There are plenty of ppl found not guilty in many different kind of cases. They act immoral, exploit law loopholes, or straight bribe and intimidate ppl to be proven innocent. In the face of law, they keep clean slide. Does not mean a common sense will find them innocent. And there is difference of severity of a crime as well. If you violate law as a businessman, it's one thing, you are the businessman against the state ... if you violate it in service of government, it's much more severe, you are the protector against the criminals. How can anyone trust you in any politician position, if common sense suggests you are corrupted and prone to cooperate with criminals in these positions.

And yet she hasn't violated any laws - except in your "common sense" definition. And if we're using that standard, YOU Trumpers are appallingly hypocritical of his enormous resume of misdeeds and malfeasance. But that's ok - hypocritical is how we're gonna make America great again!

If you're going to pretend to be intellectually honest, at least do a better job of it.

[Orlong]

Bullshit you care... you're just a Donald Dump puppet failing to try to coerce Bernie supporters to Dump's side... you've shown multiple times in these forums that you don't give two damn shits about any "Dirty regressive Liberals" (your words, not mine) out there.

I dont have to like Bernie to be pissed about the way he was treated

[eschatological]

They werent asking for a recording of a piece critical of Hillary. They were asking to have the segment pulled from the air. If they wanted a recording they could have just hit record on a DVR.

They were not asking for a copy of an article critical of Hillary, they were asking to have the article altered to not be as critical of her before it was published.

And no you dont get to tell people what questions are to be asked in an interview. The point of an interview is for someone to ask you questions that they want the answers to, so people can find out the information they want to know. An interview isnt supposed to be a charade where you use it to get your message out through fake questionsthat you came up with and that you already prepared answers for before they are asked

1) Did you read the whole EMail? It asks for a rush transcript. If you're familiar with any sort of media relations in politics, you know that every day, campaigns put together reels of news stories about their candidates. To "pull" a story off it, and rush a transcript, is so that it can be discussed internally and responded to. Note, the EMail says the piece is airing AT THAT VERY MOMENT. The DNC isn't asking for the piece to be pulled - it's already being aired.

2) The article was highly technical, and asked for specific technical details on the funding of a certain funding mechanism. Then, the piece was forwarded to the campaign for comment, and it put the DNC in a panic. It was published soon after, not edited, but it added the Clinton campaign's comments. Ironically, the piece went up and was highly critical of Clinton, and was pushed by both Bernie's camp and the RNC. It never gained any traction, though, because it was a nuanced piece about campaign finance and couldn't be summed up in a tweet. Nobody on the right, or even Bernie's camp, ever points out the actual article, because it not only shows it wasn't tailored by the DNC, but it goes against the narrative of the media propping up Hillary Clinton.

3) Yes, yes you do. Trump set the questions in the Megyn Kelly interview when he sat down with her after months of their public "feud." It's pretty common, actually. Rarely is an interview completely unscripted.

Of course, I don't expect you to argue rationally against these points, only repeat verbatim some nonsensical non-point.

[Orlong]

3) Yes, yes you do. Trump set the questions in the Megyn Kelly interview when he sat down with her after months of their public "feud." It's pretty common, actually. Rarely is an interview completely unscripted.

Of course, I don't expect you to argue rationally against these points, only repeat verbatim some nonsensical non-point.

Well if every interview is like that why bother even doing an interview. Why not just let the person come on and give a speech. What the hell is the point of an interview if youre not going to get a answers to questions you actually want to ask? Its all a big charade

[Vorkreist]

And yet she hasn't violated any laws - except in your "common sense" definition. And if we're using that standard, YOU Trumpers are appallingly hypocritical of his enormous resume of misdeeds and malfeasance. But that's ok - hypocritical is how we're gonna make America great again!

If you're going to pretend to be intellectually honest, at least do a better job of it.

Are you doing voluntary work or are you payed like the : http://www.businessinsider.com/clint...-online-2016-4

?

[Puremallace]

Just another f u to Bernie supporters. Just crazy that any Bernie supporter would go near HRC. Jill Stein all the way.