The Elephant in the Room

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I have a couple of documentaries about the Clinton's on my hardrive. I can't remember the names of them, my computer stopped working yesterday so on my laptop fo now. I will rebuild it when I get the chance and post the titles very interesting they are.
 
Report: Hillary Clinton told FBI Colin Powell advised use of private email - CNNPolitics.com
makes interesting reading and perhaps brings into focus the reasons why so many politicians wish to use channels of communication not subject to FREEDOM OF INFORMATION legislation.
Secrecy has always been the tool of government for two principle reasons- to restrict information passing to your enemies - domestic and foreign. Does anyone think Mr Putin's communications are subject to any freedom of information act in Russia ? It would be interesting to hear of communications between him and President Assad for example? While open and accountable government is of course desireable and sometimes essential there are times the ability to effectively govern may require a degree of secrecy. Where things might be different would be if the person under investigation was plotting some gross abuse of power-- planning a military coup, an elimination of political opposition, or conducting an elict war without the knowledge of the electorate [ like Richard Nixons bombing in Cambodia] Following an extensive FBI investigation there was no corroborating evidence that Clinton was doing anything remotely like that . In a way it comes down to trusting the politicians you elect to do the right thing. To think anything else is a potential path to paranoia----- a road many of the american electorate appear to be going down.
Witness the aftermath of the attempted Turkish coup. At what point does the suspicion stop? Just how many people do you lock up as enemies of the state ?
 
FBI reopens Hillary Clinton email investigation - BBC News

In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said that emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, and that they “appear to be pertinent to the investigation.”
Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. was taking steps to “determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.” He said he did not know how long it would take to review the emails, or whether the new information was significant.

Seriously this smacks of a back covering/ mischief making exercise to me. The outcome of the presidential election possibly decided by "revealing" precisely no information
Shameful conduct calculated to enflame an electorate already suffering from an overdose of paranoia.
 
Last edited:
Rudy Guiliani , former New York Mayor , appointed Comey as an assistant when he was a U.S. District Attorney. Rudy is one of Trumps campaign leaders , and I am sure any link here is purely coincidence.;)
 
The latest" Clintongate " emails came to light during a separate inquiry into top Clinton aide Huma Abedin's estranged husband, former congressman Anthony Weiner.
Devices belonging to Ms Abedin and Mr Weiner were seized in an investigation into whether he sent sexually explicit emails to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina!!
How this possibly relates to obvious gross breaches of national security remains a mystery which would be the only possible justification for the FBI directors intervention on the eve of the presidential election.
 
Finally, I think I understand why the Americans have a history of assassinating their Presidents...
 
Michael Moore vs Donald Trump?

Difficult one, not a fan of either....
 
I have long thought that - barring dyed-in-the-wool supporters who would vote for a dog in a hat if it was their party's representative, and the relatively few who understand the issues and make an informed choice- people tend to vote not for the party/candidate they want, but against the one they don't want.

Trump appears to have the pig-thick redneck vote pretty much sewn up, and has done a lot to alienate the black, Hispanic and female vote, so the result may well depend on what proportion of the latter group dislike Clinton more than they dislike Trump.
 
I have a couple of documentaries about the Clinton's on my hardrive. I can't remember the names of them, my computer stopped working yesterday so on my laptop fo now. I will rebuild it when I get the chance and post the titles very interesting they are.


Still haven't rebuilt my computer but here's the documentary titles I remembered. They are questionable but I'll post anyway.

The New Clinton Chronicles (not the clinton chronicles).
Obstruction of Justice the Mena connection.

I got some chocolate toady.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0002.jpg
    DSC_0002.jpg
    206 KB · Views: 7
I have long thought that - barring dyed-in-the-wool supporters who would vote for a dog in a hat if it was their party's representative, and the relatively few who understand the issues and make an informed choice- people tend to vote not for the party/candidate they want, but against the one they don't want.

Trump appears to have the pig-thick redneck vote pretty much sewn up, and has done a lot to alienate the black, Hispanic and female vote, so the result may well depend on what proportion of the latter group dislike Clinton more than they dislike Trump.

Good point.

I personally think Trump will win (or rather Hilary will lose) but only for a couple of reasons;

1). Americans dont like Hilary and her faults.

2). America isnt about to vote their first female president into office.

I'd hate to be an American (for many reasons) but right now they have to chose between two very very unsuitable candidates.
 
This is all making Brexit look like a local council election.

I'm surprised one of the other candidates (believe it or not there are others available) hasn't started a "Brewsters Millions" vote for none of the above campaign.

Surely Gary Johnson is more palatible then either of the front runners?
 
Most of the Americans I know saw Saunders as some beardy lefty, but now would much rather have him that either Clinton or Trump.
 
Most of the Americans I know saw Saunders as some beardy lefty, but now would much rather have him that either Clinton or Trump.

These elections are not about right and left any more.... they seem to focus heavily on the candidates' personalities now. And more on the negative aspects, of which there are quite a few.....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom