Seems as though the

(August 12, 2016 at 2:25 pm)Whateverist Wrote:

(August 12, 2016 at 8:45 am)A Theist Wrote: Yeah, he email his returns to her. I'd like to see Hillary release the series of speeches that she was paid $5 million to give.

I'll bet that is an exchange she'd sign off on in a heart beat.  Then again, what would be the point?  There is nothing T can do or say which will discourage vile people from wanting to vote for one of their own.

So far she hasn't done that despite the appeals for her to do so. The point being, she said that she and Bill were dead broke and in debt when they left the White House after his term as president. After a few years they're now worth $150 million. How did the Clintons go from dead broke and in debt to amassing $150 million in just a few years? There have been several appeals from field FBI investigators to the DOJ to investigate the Clinton Foundation, but Obama and Lynch have been running block for Hillary. It looks like the Clintons have been using the Foundation to accept generous monetary gifts from foreign governments, friends, special interests, and wealthy wall street donors for political favors. This was going on during her term as SOS, which is illegal. Seems like the Clinton Foundation has been a very profitable venture for Bill and Hillary. There is no amount of corruption, recklessness, and conniving that Hillary and the DNC can do that will discourage yellow dog democrats from voting for one of their own.

(August 13, 2016 at 8:20 am)A Theist Wrote: There is no amount of corruption, recklessness, and conniving that Hillary and the DNC can do that will discourage yellow dog democrats from voting for one of their own.

Apart from the fact that Trump hasn't got a squeaky clean record himself, there might be some just pinching their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I'm not an American, but as I said, this is the worst selection of American presidential candidates in my living memory. But if I were American I would vote Hilary. Not because I like her but because she stands for not making matters worse than they already are. And given the American electoral system, every vote for a third party candidate is wasted, as it is.

(August 13, 2016 at 8:34 am)abaris Wrote:

(August 13, 2016 at 8:20 am)A Theist Wrote: There is no amount of corruption, recklessness, and conniving that Hillary and the DNC can do that will discourage yellow dog democrats from voting for one of their own.

Apart from the fact that Trump hasn't got a squeaky clean record himself, there might be some just pinching their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

I'm not an American, but as I said, this is the worst selection of American presidential candidates in my living memory. But if I were American I would vote Hilary. Not because I like her but because she stands for not making matters worse than they already are. And given the American electoral system, every vote for a third party candidate is wasted, as it is.

Can't say that I disagree that this is worst selection of presidential candidates that I've seen, and I go back pretty far. If I lived in a State where I thought the vote wasn't critical I would either not vote for a presidential candidate or I would vote for a third party.

I was wrong. Assange has claimed the leaked emails already show that the Obama administration with Hillary as Secretary of State has supplied weapons to DAESH:

"So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails." - Assange


Source (Democracy Now) Full video on DN, here's the clip where he makes that claim:

https://youtu.be/vnWWgKxWvtY

(August 12, 2016 at 2:18 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I agree, show me the sources! Otherwise I don't really care what Julian Assange says. He could be totally exaggerating Hillary's involvement. I also think that it has to go both ways. I mean the media picked up the story about Donald Trump and nuclear weapons just on the say so of Joe Scarbourgh stammering a few sentences about him asking about nuclear weapons with no sources. The media reported it as though Trump was ready to nuke the world. Mainstream media has devolved into a total joke. They'll cover rumors about Trump just for the ratings.

I have much more respect for Wikileaks than I do for Assange. But I think we take Assange at his word when he says that.

So first the problem with Wikileaks is not that it doesn't redact enough information from innocent parties (although it doesn't and it should and not doing so hurts their credibility), it's that it's a tiny journalist organisation with only about 5 active members. So they actually can't publish these email leaks as quickly as they would like, which is why Assange has said the upcoming emails will likely be in batches in order to get them published as soon as possible.

As far as sources are concerned, yes you could argue the identity of the source of the "leaks" and or "hacks" is in the public interest, however any journalist who is worth their salt will protect their sources, and Wikileaks is specifically set up to protect their sources. It is possible that Assange does not know the identity of the leak, because Wikileaks can accept fully anonymous submissions through the Darknet or snail-mail.

And Assange is right when he says that no one from the DNC has said any of the emails are forgeries, and that Wikileaks has built a reputation of only publishing true information, not information that is forged or otherwise false.

Thank you Aractus, that's what I thought he said. When these new leaks come out, I agree with you I that I think Clinton is done. Although there will be loads of spin and some very stubborn people in this forum will refuse to accept that she sent weapons to terrorists.

For all his ills, at least Trump hasn't committed any war crimes (yet?). Hilary is very proud of her war crimes by the sounds of things, and loves to hang out with fellow war criminals like Kissenger. Why does she keep a "brag sheet" in which she lists how amazing she is at exacerbating Middle Eastern conflicts? Sounds to me like she loves war.

I keep hearing how Hillary will be 'done'. Yet, she's still standing after all this stuff. Maybe in 2024 (or 2020 if the Republicans get their act together, or Hillary decides not to run for re-election) they'll finally be able to say "Hillary is done!"

(August 13, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Cecelia Wrote: I keep hearing how Hillary will be 'done'. Yet, she's still standing after all this stuff. Maybe in 2024 (or 2020 if the Republicans get their act together, or Hillary decides not to run for re-election) they'll finally be able to say "Hillary is done!"

So America will forgive Hilary even if what Assange is true and she colluded with al-Baghdadi and his goons?

You're counting your chickens before they hatch. When Hillary wins in November, you'll probably still be talking about how she's 'done'. I seriously doubt that Assange has anything so damaging on Clinton as he claims he does. (He's not about transparency as much as he'd like people to think. He has a clear agenda.) The DNC emails weren't nearly as bad as some people act like they are, either. (And contrary to what Wikileaks says, Bob Beckel is not tied to the Hillary Campaign, and said that Assange should be assassinated... back in 2010. Guess it finally got to them or something)|

I also don't think some of our non-american friends know just how bad Trump is.

Well considering its been normal for Washington to support Jihadis for decades, I think it's a safe bet to assume Hilary encouraged the same. She's just as scummy as Donald, and I don't trust her with the nukes either. So many different groups in Syria get help from the United States there was a story about how CIA backed terrorists were fighting those backed by the state department. I'm fairly confident Hilary allowed weapons to be given to terrorists.

And, look, we now know she was finding jobs at the State Department for big Clinton Foundation donors, so-called "pay to play". So that's a massive conflict of interest when she said she would keep the Clinton Foundation separate from her work at the State Department. And if it turns out Assange is exaggerating she'll have that scandal to deal with anyway. So many Clinton scandals it's hard to keep track of them all.

(August 13, 2016 at 3:28 pm)ReptilianPeon Wrote:

(August 13, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Cecelia Wrote: I keep hearing how Hillary will be 'done'.  Yet, she's still standing after all this stuff.  Maybe in 2024 (or 2020 if the Republicans get their act together, or Hillary decides not to run for re-election) they'll finally be able to say "Hillary is done!"

So America will forgive Hilary even if what Assange is true and she colluded with al-Baghdadi and his goons?

You're talking to Yellow Dogs. They'll vote for Hillary no matter what is revealed about how corrupt she is.