Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Fargus]

The NYT article doesn't say they have something, it says they could have something so they got a search warrant to look.

If this was about the public good and not trying to tip the election they would make sure they actually had something before releasing information.

You might want to read it again, specifically when they mention metadata.

They do. Thousands of e-mails, some of which are linked to her, according to the NYT and other media sources.

Regardless, we'll find out within months.

- - - Updated - - -

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/hi...-her-daughter/

Evidence has come out that Hillary forwarded an email containing classified information to Chelsea Clinton (who is a private citizen and does not have security clearance to view that information), she then deleted that email and did not turn it over to the FBI.

This information was released yesterday

Don't be silly Venant, THEY HAVE NOTHING AND I KNOW IT BECAUSE I'M TYPING IN CAPS!

[Wyrt]

You might want to read it again, specifically when they mention metadata.

They do. Thousands of e-mails, some of which are linked to her, according to the NYT and other media sources.

Regardless, we'll find out within months.

And they have no idea what's in those emails. They don't have anything, but they made an announcement anyway to influence the election.

[Fargus]

And they have no idea what's in those emails. They don't have anything, but they made an announcement anyway to influence the election.

Parroting this statement doesn't make that true.

They already have a search warrant, I'm sure they have a better idea than you do.

[Wyrt]

Parroting this statement doesn't make that true.

They already have a search warrant, I'm sure they have a better idea than you do.

They didn't have a search warrant at the time of the announcement. They had nothing at the time. They have not yet found anything. Please explain why they made an announcement to the public about nothing.

[Fargus]

If they had evidence we would know about it.

Haha, uhh, no. The FBI are under no obligation to tell you what evidence they have. The only way we'd know, is if they tell us directly or if it is leaked.

Powers of deduction: There is no evidence so far.

No, that's called powers of assumption.

They would have been required to share this new evidence.
The moment he spoke about this they weren't even allowed to read the mails, so again: It's either with partisan intent OR the guy is an even bigger idiot than Trump.

Required by whom? The FBI doesn't need to tell you everything they have.

You have zero proof there is "partisan intent", do you even have any proof they are all Republicans? Even your own president doesn't agree with that. It's cute that you're spinning it like this, but generally no major agency is going to make an announcement like this unless they actually have something (otherwise someone like Comey is going to be in huuuge trouble). Why would someone, who most people (even Democrats) regard him as an honest individual and one with integrity, risk his career over it?

You clamour about how they weren't allowed to read the e-mails, but that's not really the only form of evidence that exists. Metadata, information from the NYPD/intelligence agencies/etc. My point is, we don't know what the FBI really has so to say that they have nothing is just a stupid assumption.

- - - Updated - - -

They didn't have a search warrant at the time of the announcement. They had nothing at the time. They have not yet found anything. Please explain why they made an announcement to the public about nothing.

That's not really relevant now, they have a search warrant so how can you say they haven't found anything yet? Unless you're a part of the FBI or DOJ, you don't know shit. So please stop treating assumptions as fact. I have already explained to you that even at that announcement, they did not have "nothing", they had the metadata. We don't even know what other forms of evidence they might have had at the time, so yeah, again, you're not privy to the investigation so don't pretend to know what they do or do not have.

[Wyrt]

That's not really relevant now, they have a search warrant so how can you say they haven't found anything yet? Unless you're a part of the FBI or DOJ, you don't know shit. So please stop treating assumptions as fact. I have already explained to you that even at that announcement, they did not have "nothing", they had the metadata. We don't even know what other forms of evidence they might have had at the time, so yeah, again, you're not privy to the investigation so don't pretend to know what they do or do not have.

And all this does is prove the point that the FBI had no business making any form of announcement about it 10 days out from the election.

[Fargus]

And all this does is prove the point that the FBI had no business making any form of announcement about it 10 days out from the election.

It doesn't prove anything. That is just your opinion.

A few people here like to prattle their opinions as if they are factual. Shrink your big heads please, unless you are actively working in the FBI or DoJ on this very case, you're as much in the dark as everyone else here.

[Wyrt]

It doesn't prove anything. That is just your opinion.

A few people here like to prattle their opinions as if they are factual. Shrink your big heads please, unless you are actively working in the FBI or DoJ on this very case, you're as much in the dark as everyone else here.

That's exactly the point. Everyone is in the dark. The announcement did nothing but hurt Clinton even though no one knows anything. There was no reason for the FBI to make the announcement other than to hurt Clinton.

[Fargus]

That's exactly the point. Everyone is in the dark. The announcement did nothing but hurt Clinton even though no one knows anything. There was no reason for the FBI to make the announcement other than to hurt Clinton.

Everyone's in the dark but you it seems:

They had nothing at the time. They have not yet found anything.

And they have no idea what's in those emails. They don't have anything, but they made an announcement anyway to influence the election.

Great public interest? THEY HAD FUCKING NOTHING AND THEY STILL HAVE FUCKING NOTHING.

THEY HAD FUCKING NOTHING.

I'll tell you who does know something: the FBI. Does it hurt Clinton? No shit it does. Maybe she should have thought of that first before doing shady shit. I'll tell you what I do know though, she is under a criminal investigation. Her foundation is being investigated by the IRS. She has no one but herself to blame... not Comey, not "partisan" FBI investigators.

So please spare me your crocodile tears.

[Felya]

Giuliani could just be speaking nonsense, as Fox usually does. Besides, if he DID have inside info then how can you say the FBI have nothing when inside information says otherwise? It's one or the other, you can't have both.

Giuliani went on Fox and said that there was a big drop happening on Friday. Went on a radio show and not only took credit, but also boasted about having leaked information. Hours after saying this, he is confronted by Wolf Blitzer and asked about this. He claims he doesn't remember and tries to pretend he was misunderstood, despite being quoted verbatim. This to you is not just written of as nonsense, but even something he usually does.

Then your conclusion is that in order to know there was something in the email, there would have to be something in the email. Completely ignoring that all he had to know is that her email was on Wiener's device, which is not only not a crime, but something that should be usual. As these are two democrats who were actively representing the same state. All Rudy needed to know, is exactly what we know, which is that her email are on his device. Yet, you think he had to know more, for reasons that don't seem to come to me at this point.

So, in that one statement, you have written off Giuliani accusation of breaking the law based on words that came out of his mouth, not only as just nonsense, but something he usually does. Then you have pretty much convicted Hillary, despite there being no charge and you not knowing what is in email.

Rudy is not guilty despite what he actually said, Hillary is guilty even though you don't know what she said. /golfclap

[Wyrt]

I'll tell you who does know something: the FBI. Does it hurt Clinton? No shit it does. Maybe she should have thought of that first before doing shady shit. I'll tell you what I do know though, she is under a criminal investigation. Her foundation is being investigated by the IRS. She has no one but herself to blame... not Comey, not "partisan" FBI investigators.

So please spare me your crocodile tears.

If they had something they would indict her with a crime, not try to influence the election against her.

[Felya]

I'll tell you who does know something: the FBI. Does it hurt Clinton? No shit it does. Maybe she should have thought of that first before doing shady shit. I'll tell you what I do know though, she is under a criminal investigation. Her foundation is being investigated by the IRS. She has no one but herself to blame... not Comey, not "partisan" FBI investigators.

Having contact with a congressman from both your party and the state you represent, is not shady shit.

So please spare me your crocodile tears.

I think you are confusing tears of laughter and tears of sorrow.

[Fargus]

<snip senseless rant>

Rudy is not guilty despite what he actually said, Hillary is guilty even though you don't know what she said. /golfclap

When did I say Hillary was guilty?

If they had something they would try her with a crime, not try to influence the election against her.

Do you realise how big an investigation like this is? They'd have to not only look through hundreds of thousands of e-mails, but match them with corroborating evidence, take more witness statements, re-interview, etc. You can't just skim through it under a week and try someone, it's a lengthy process that will probably take months to complete. This is only ONE investigation too, there's also others relating to her foundation - that in itself is going to be more complex, especially if there is going to be information sharing with the IRS.

- - - Updated - - -

Having contact with a congressman from both your party and the state you represent, is not shady shit.

Then why is she under a criminal investigation? Why are the FBI also looking at her foundation, as well as the IRS?

You keep on telling yourself there's nothing shady about that, I'll keep on telling you that you are dumb.

[Wyrt]

Do you realise how big an investigation like this is? They'd have to not only look through hundreds of thousands of e-mails, but match them with corroborating evidence, take more witness statements, re-interview, etc. You can't just skim through it under a week and try someone, it's a lengthy process that will probably take months to complete. This is only ONE investigation too, there's also others relating to her foundation - that in itself is going to be more complex, especially if there is going to be information sharing with the IRS.

You're still not explaining why they sent out a notification.

[Endus]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/04/hi...-her-daughter/

Evidence has come out that Hillary forwarded an email containing classified information to Chelsea Clinton (who is a private citizen and does not have security clearance to view that information), she then deleted that email and did not turn it over to the FBI.

This information was released yesterday

And still doesn't prove the ridiculous accusations against Clinton.

Everything about her e-mail to date is reason she should have been fired as Secretary of State, maybe. And that's it. And given that she resigned first, there's nothing else this warrants.

[Fargus]

You're still not explaining why they sent out a notification.

I already speculated earlier on why.

But that's not important. The important thing is what they will uncover, and what course this investigation will take. Wait it out a few months.

[Wyrt]

I already speculated earlier on why.

But that's not important. The important thing is what they will uncover, and what course this investigation will take. Wait it out a few months.

It is important because it was sent out 10 days before the election and very much looks like a violation of the Hatch Act especially with the collusion with the Trump campaign.

[Fargus]

It is important because it was sent out 10 days before the election and very much looks like a violation of the Hatch Act especially with the collusion with the Trump campaign.

And what if it reveals massive corruption and leads to an arrest? Would you say it was worth it?

Anyway, I'm not seeing any evidence of this "collusion" other than you being upset that it affected Clinton negatively. This should be a matter of law, going far beyond partisan politics. Just imagine if this was Trump, would you be saying the same things? Stein? I'd bet my house on that you wouldn't. Whether it's a violation of the Hatch Act or not is up to whatever committee or court deals with those sort of things. I'll take Trey Gowdy's viewpoint on this though.

[Wyrt]

And what if it reveals massive corruption and leads to an arrest? Would you say it was worth it?

Anyway, I'm not seeing any evidence of this "collusion" other than you being upset that it affected Clinton negatively. This should be a matter of law, going far beyond partisan politics. Just imagine if this was Trump, would you be saying the same things? Stein? I'd bet my house on that you wouldn't. Whether it's a violation of the Hatch Act or not is up to whatever committee or court deals with those sort of things. I'll take Trey Gowdy's viewpoint on this though.

Giuliani got inside information from the FBI, that's collusion and a violation of the Hatch Act. That's why the senate is sending an investigator after his ass.

And if it doesn't reveal anything is it worth it to violate the laws of the country for partisanship?

[Fargus]

Giuliani got inside information from the FBI, that's collusion and a violation of the Hatch Act. That's why the senate is sending an investigator after his ass.

And if it doesn't reveal anything is it worth it to violate the laws of the country for partisanship?

Then... investigate him and try him if he's found to have broken the law?

I was referring to Comey.

I'll answer if you answer mine first. Answering a question with a question is being evasive.