BREAKING: Comey Says We Haven't Changed Conclusions Since July - Clears Hillary

[JimBowie1958]

You're absolutely correct, the FBI can't just go on a fishing expedition through hundreds of thousands of emails looking for wrong doing. The computer belong to Anthony Weiner which was used by his wife, Huma Abedin, a Clinton aid now separated from Weiner. Supposedly, Abedin used Weiner's computer and there were emails from or too her which could be of interest to the email investigation. Probably the FBI investigators used software to pull all emails written to or from her to be reviewed. Comey said these emails were either personal or were duplicates of what they already had. So unless something new comes up, that will end of the investigation.

There is no end of an investigation by law enforcement until one of two things happen; either it goes to trial and results returned or the statue of limitations kick in and then the case is closed.

Why do you Dims keep lying to yourselves so much?

 

[emilynghiem]

You love him, you hate him, and now you love him.

He is credible, he is not credible, now he is credible...

or, perhaps you are not credible....

Comey did his appointed damage, and now wants to try to convince the nation he was just doing his job. What a crock of bullshit, the guy has damaged democracy itself, intentionally and with malice of forethought. He was never hated by the Democrats, or loved by the Democrats, he is what he is another hack who abused the power of his office, just like Christie who inconvenience thousands of commuters out of spite.

Of course when HRC takes office he will get the pink slip (how fitting) and likely land a cushy job with a right wing think tank which will spent the next four years thinking about ways to harm a HRC presidency, no matter how such an agenda might harm our citizens.

Do you understand Wry Catcher and Lakhota that just the existence exposure and transmission of confirmed classified material by private server is already a violation of rules and gross negligence?

And the only thing preventing charges is no provable evidence of INTENT which is subjective at this point, not proven by written evidence.

So any chance of finding a printed or recorded statement showing INTENT has to be examined or it appears a conflict of political interest to keep doing what you are doing and asking authorities NOT to look.

There is more pressure on Comey to keep looking because there is such a huge chance of conflicting interests with the money and emails changing hands between sides who would benefit from covering up and would be exposed for it.

He is under more pressure not to appear biased by looking the other way.

It's the opposite of how you frame it.

A fine effort to spin the issue, but it fails to turn. The entire fiasco was an effort by Comey to influence the election. Now, by your reasoning, you and others simply assume intent and thus reject the principle "innocent until proven guilty". Mobs of Trump supporters chanting "lock her up", and Trumps "worse than Watergate" rhetoric are examples of fascism, find a scapegoat and set the jackals upon it.

The pressure you claim Comey is/was under, was his own doing. Stupid people do not rise to such positions as the director of the FBI, buy even intelligent people sometimes F up. Sometimes F ups cost people their job. In Comey's case, a new AG will likely replace Comey as their first order of business.

No Wry Catcher this started at the very beginning, not at the end.
The issue is proving INTENT.

How can you find evidence to prove INTENT if you aren't looking because you're afraid that looking for it appears biased.

It was never denied but fully confirmed AT THE START that classified materials were in the original emails that authorities confirmed should never have been transmitted by private server.

The issue of INTENT is what is subjective until there is evidence found.

You and I AGREE you can't assume INTENT without proof. The issue remains if the authorities are looking to find and prove intent or prefer it not be found. There is still a bias on how far they will try to find proof of intent.

The arguments on conflicts of interest with the AG are obvious. So that alone should have triggered a change to this process since people appointed by those investigated can't be expected to check themselves. That's a no brainer.

You forget Comey disavowed mens rea in his first press conference. No intent, no crime and he went even further by calling her a technological novice.

Ask yourself why would a Secretary of State would undermine her efforts of diplomacy to seek win-win solutions in foreign affairs by being indiscriminate on line?

Dear Wry Catcher
Not finding proof yet of intent is
Not the same as proving there was no intent which is equally faith based.

That's not possible to prove there was no intent unless someone else did the actions and the person accused can prove they didn't even know of the actions so of course there is no intent in that case.

For you to say the lack of finding anything yet "proves" there is no intention is subjective.

That's like saying if we don't have proof the laws of gravity will continue to operate without changing, then this lack of evidence "proves" it will change?

No, sorry, it proves it COULD change.

Just like the lack of proof of intent COULD change, and if evidence is found later that COULD prove intent.

There is still room to prove intent even if it isn't found yet.

Wry Catcher if it were really proven that Clinton had no intent, then no amount of evidence or argument could change that if it's a given

But it's not.

A single statement found can still prove intent.

Lack of evidence is not proof because that lack can change.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The issue is proving INTENT.

How can you find evidence to prove INTENT if you aren't looking because you're afraid that looking for it appears biased.

It was never denied but fully confirmed AT THE START that classified materials were in the original emails that authorities confirmed should never have been transmitted by private server.

The issue of INTENT is what is subjective until there is evidence found.

You and I AGREE you can't assume INTENT without proof. The issue remains if the authorities are looking to find and prove intent or prefer it not be found. There is still a bias on how far they will try to find proof of intent.

The arguments on conflicts of interest with the AG are obvious. So that alone should have triggered a change to this process since people appointed by those investigated can't be expected to check themselves. That's a no brainer.

Destroying evidence is generally considered proof of intent.

In this case Hillarys legal responsibility to safe guard classified information is a felony if she fails to do it, but we not only know that she failed in that responsibility because the emails are now on Weiners computer and he has no clearance, but we also know that she had intent to expose these documents because SHE WAS HAVING HER MAID PRINT THEM OUT FOR HER.

This leaves no doubt that Hillary Clinton broke the law many many times, but Comey is saying that Hillary is too stupid and careless to be held accountable and that one cannot prove intent even in cases of NEGLIGENCE, which is simply absurd.

He would not make that argument if it was any of us other than Hillary the Queen Bitch Clinton he was investigating.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Comey did his appointed damage, and now wants to try to convince the nation he was just doing his job. What a crock of bullshit, the guy has damaged democracy itself, intentionally and with malice of forethought. He was never hated by the Democrats, or loved by the Democrats, he is what he is another hack who abused the power of his office, just like Christie who inconvenience thousands of commuters out of spite.

Of course when HRC takes office he will get the pink slip (how fitting) and likely land a cushy job with a right wing think tank which will spent the next four years thinking about ways to harm a HRC presidency, no matter how such an agenda might harm our citizens.

Do you understand Wry Catcher and Lakhota that just the existence exposure and transmission of confirmed classified material by private server is already a violation of rules and gross negligence?

And the only thing preventing charges is no provable evidence of INTENT which is subjective at this point, not proven by written evidence.

So any chance of finding a printed or recorded statement showing INTENT has to be examined or it appears a conflict of political interest to keep doing what you are doing and asking authorities NOT to look.

There is more pressure on Comey to keep looking because there is such a huge chance of conflicting interests with the money and emails changing hands between sides who would benefit from covering up and would be exposed for it.

He is under more pressure not to appear biased by looking the other way.

It's the opposite of how you frame it.

A fine effort to spin the issue, but it fails to turn. The entire fiasco was an effort by Comey to influence the election. Now, by your reasoning, you and others simply assume intent and thus reject the principle "innocent until proven guilty". Mobs of Trump supporters chanting "lock her up", and Trumps "worse than Watergate" rhetoric are examples of fascism, find a scapegoat and set the jackals upon it.

The pressure you claim Comey is/was under, was his own doing. Stupid people do not rise to such positions as the director of the FBI, buy even intelligent people sometimes F up. Sometimes F ups cost people their job. In Comey's case, a new AG will likely replace Comey as their first order of business.

No Wry Catcher this started at the very beginning, not at the end.
The issue is proving INTENT.

How can you find evidence to prove INTENT if you aren't looking because you're afraid that looking for it appears biased.

It was never denied but fully confirmed AT THE START that classified materials were in the original emails that authorities confirmed should never have been transmitted by private server.

The issue of INTENT is what is subjective until there is evidence found.

You and I AGREE you can't assume INTENT without proof. The issue remains if the authorities are looking to find and prove intent or prefer it not be found. There is still a bias on how far they will try to find proof of intent.

The arguments on conflicts of interest with the AG are obvious. So that alone should have triggered a change to this process since people appointed by those investigated can't be expected to check themselves. That's a no brainer.

You forget Comey disavowed mens rea in his first press conference. No intent, no crime and he went even further by calling her a technological novice.

Ask yourself why would a Secretary of State would undermine her efforts of diplomacy to seek win-win solutions in foreign affairs by being indiscriminate on line?

Dear Wry Catcher
Not finding proof yet of intent is
Not the same as proving there was no intent which is equally faith based.

That's not possible to prove there was no intent unless someone else did the actions and the person accused can prove they didn't even know of the actions so of course there is no intent in that case.

For you to say the lack of finding anything yet "proves" there is no intention is subjective.

That's like saying if we don't have proof the laws of gravity will continue to operate without changing, then this lack of evidence "proves" it will change?

No, sorry, it proves it COULD change.

Just like the lack of proof of intent COULD change, and if evidence is found later that COULD prove intent.

There is still room to prove intent even if it isn't found yet.

Wry Catcher if it were really proven that Clinton had no intent, then no amount of evidence or argument could change that if it's a given

But it's not.

A single statement found can still prove intent.

Lack of evidence is not proof because that lack can change.

Ask yourself why would a Secretary of State intentionally undermine her efforts of diplomacy to seek win-win solutions in foreign affairs, by being indiscriminate on line? If a classified document was written by the Secretary which demeaned a foreign dignitary how would that be 1) kept secret, 2) and enable her to work productively with said dignitary or others who might be privy to such a comment?

 

[emilynghiem]

You're absolutely correct, the FBI can't just go on a fishing expedition through hundreds of thousands of emails looking for wrong doing. The computer belong to Anthony Weiner which was used by his wife, Huma Abedin, a Clinton aid now separated from Weiner. Supposedly, Abedin used Weiner's computer and there were emails from or too her which could be of interest to the email investigation. Probably the FBI investigators used software to pull all emails written to or from her to be reviewed. Comey said these emails were either personal or were duplicates of what they already had. So unless something new comes up, that will end of the investigation.

There is no end of an investigation by law enforcement until one of two things happen; either it goes to trial and results returned or the statue of limitations kick in and then the case is closed.

Why do you Dims keep lying to yourselves so much?

Please note JimBowie1958
The statute of limitations is too easily abused by dragging out cases so ppl get away with it. Constitutionally on principle this tactic violates the right of people to petition govt for redress of grievances left unresolved.

But the damage is done in the meantime
Which violates equal protection of the laws.

We should have equal security as when these abuses don't occur in the first place. The minute some trespass occurs it already infringes on the rights of complainants to equal protections.

The only way to protect ppl equally is agree to no abuses at all, and to resolve conflicts by mediation instead of competing to bias the process and outcome toward one side or the other.

Otherwise in a biased process, govt and legal authority gets abused to deprive citizens of equal protection of interest representation and due process. It's not a fair game to begin with if we don't pledge to protect interest of all sides equally but pit one against the others as a contest. The rule should be equal consent not the bigger more coercive or evasive side winning while petitions for grievances go unredressed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Do you understand Wry Catcher and Lakhota that just the existence exposure and transmission of confirmed classified material by private server is already a violation of rules and gross negligence?

And the only thing preventing charges is no provable evidence of INTENT which is subjective at this point, not proven by written evidence.

So any chance of finding a printed or recorded statement showing INTENT has to be examined or it appears a conflict of political interest to keep doing what you are doing and asking authorities NOT to look.

There is more pressure on Comey to keep looking because there is such a huge chance of conflicting interests with the money and emails changing hands between sides who would benefit from covering up and would be exposed for it.

He is under more pressure not to appear biased by looking the other way.

It's the opposite of how you frame it.

A fine effort to spin the issue, but it fails to turn. The entire fiasco was an effort by Comey to influence the election. Now, by your reasoning, you and others simply assume intent and thus reject the principle "innocent until proven guilty". Mobs of Trump supporters chanting "lock her up", and Trumps "worse than Watergate" rhetoric are examples of fascism, find a scapegoat and set the jackals upon it.

The pressure you claim Comey is/was under, was his own doing. Stupid people do not rise to such positions as the director of the FBI, buy even intelligent people sometimes F up. Sometimes F ups cost people their job. In Comey's case, a new AG will likely replace Comey as their first order of business.

No Wry Catcher this started at the very beginning, not at the end.
The issue is proving INTENT.

How can you find evidence to prove INTENT if you aren't looking because you're afraid that looking for it appears biased.

It was never denied but fully confirmed AT THE START that classified materials were in the original emails that authorities confirmed should never have been transmitted by private server.

The issue of INTENT is what is subjective until there is evidence found.

You and I AGREE you can't assume INTENT without proof. The issue remains if the authorities are looking to find and prove intent or prefer it not be found. There is still a bias on how far they will try to find proof of intent.

The arguments on conflicts of interest with the AG are obvious. So that alone should have triggered a change to this process since people appointed by those investigated can't be expected to check themselves. That's a no brainer.

You forget Comey disavowed mens rea in his first press conference. No intent, no crime and he went even further by calling her a technological novice.

Ask yourself why would a Secretary of State would undermine her efforts of diplomacy to seek win-win solutions in foreign affairs by being indiscriminate on line?

Dear Wry Catcher
Not finding proof yet of intent is
Not the same as proving there was no intent which is equally faith based.

That's not possible to prove there was no intent unless someone else did the actions and the person accused can prove they didn't even know of the actions so of course there is no intent in that case.

For you to say the lack of finding anything yet "proves" there is no intention is subjective.

That's like saying if we don't have proof the laws of gravity will continue to operate without changing, then this lack of evidence "proves" it will change?

No, sorry, it proves it COULD change.

Just like the lack of proof of intent COULD change, and if evidence is found later that COULD prove intent.

There is still room to prove intent even if it isn't found yet.

Wry Catcher if it were really proven that Clinton had no intent, then no amount of evidence or argument could change that if it's a given

But it's not.

A single statement found can still prove intent.

Lack of evidence is not proof because that lack can change.

Ask yourself why would a Secretary of State intentionally undermine her efforts of diplomacy to seek win-win solutions in foreign affairs, by being indiscriminate on line? If a classified document was written by the Secretary which demeaned a foreign dignitary how would that be 1) kept secret, 2) and enable her to work productively with said dignitary or others who might be privy to such a comment?

I thought the whole theory of the private server is to allow communications and thus trade offs between donations and dealings with the Clinton Foundation and private business with foreign interests. By collecting money and support to run for office this creates a conflict of interest, mixing authority as SOS with financial and business interests through the private fdn with global influence. But using a private server the govt has no connection to, they have to ask and get the access. And that gives Clinton time and control to wipe out personal emails legally, but with zero visibility if other info is being deleted or altered.

At best it creates APPEARANCE of conflicting interest and room for intent to abuse.

So it still harms integrity of govt
See Code of Ethics for Govt Service www.ethics-commission.net
Lawyers are well aware of appearances of conflicting interests
But know the law requires proof. The honest lawyers steer clear of appearance of influence, but the corrupt ones don't care and use it because they know the legal standards and hide behind those to cover their tracks where it can't be proven, and anything done can be explained legally.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sucks to be a Trump-loser. 30 years of lying pathologically about Clinton, and she's still whupping their candy asses. All they can do about it now is cry on message boards and try to lie even bigger, but nobody is buying it.

Don't worry, Trump-losers, there's no need to have an "L" tattooed on your foreheads. Everyone already sees that when they look at you.

This is the epitome of why Dims vote for Hillary, they want their free shit, the dont want to be punished by their fellow fascists, and finally they see no alternative and cannot imagine why anyone would choose to be what they consider "losers" instead of kissing Hillaries boot.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sucks to be a Trump-loser. 30 years of lying pathologically about Clinton, and she's still whupping their candy asses. All they can do about it now is cry on message boards and try to lie even bigger, but nobody is buying it.

Don't worry, Trump-losers, there's no need to have an "L" tattooed on your foreheads. Everyone already sees that when they look at you.

This is the epitome of why Dims vote for Hillary, they want their free shit, the dont want to be punished by their fellow fascists, and finally they see no alternative and cannot imagine why anyone would choose to be what they consider "losers" instead of kissing Hillaries boot.

I think it's they see no alternative.

The legal lobby in this country which the Obamas and Clinton's use to get elected and do all their deals through
dominates and controls 80% of govt, all 3 branches.

They write and enforce laws and decide and influence judges in courts so there's no way out of that loop.

Not unless ppl unite and Sue for change to get it into the media. It won't win in court but if it gets publicized that could make a dent.

All we need is one Rosa Parks moment , someone saying I'm tired and want out of this circus, and the public might join in saying no more we do not consent to having our consent violated by corporate politics controlling party elections federal govt and courts. No to all the above.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The statute of limitations is too easily abused by dragging out cases so ppl get away with it. Constitutionally on principle this tactic violates the right of people to petition govt for redress of grievances left unresolved.

But the damage is done in the meantime
Which violates equal protection of the laws.

We should have equal security as when these abuses don't occur in the first place. The minute some trespass occurs it already infringes on the rights of complainants to equal protections.

And yet the government does EXACTLY THAT to other people who get caught up in the many myriad number of laws that we have entangling us today. They investigate, they say that you are a "person of interest" publicly and no one cares about your reputation or your legal costs in the meantime.

IF we are to have EQUAL TREATMENT BEFORE THE LAW, then Hillary should get the same kind of crap from the government that everyone else does.

But not if it hurts Hillary? Why? What makes Hillary so special?

 

[Silhouette]

What makes Trump so special?

 

[Silhouette]

Where are Trump's emails between himself and his accountant? I want to see if a person running for government office has committed a crime against the government... We know he's skipped out on paying federal taxes for...for how many years now? Decades?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. See my signature for details..

 

[JimBowie1958]

What makes Trump so special?

Lol, so everything is about your hatred for Trump?

We are talking about Hillary plainly committing multitudes of felonies in exposing national classified documents, even telling her maid to print them for her, which is illegal as hell, and all you can parrot is "Duh, well whud about Trump?"

 

[emilynghiem]

The statute of limitations is too easily abused by dragging out cases so ppl get away with it. Constitutionally on principle this tactic violates the right of people to petition govt for redress of grievances left unresolved.

But the damage is done in the meantime
Which violates equal protection of the laws.

We should have equal security as when these abuses don't occur in the first place. The minute some trespass occurs it already infringes on the rights of complainants to equal protections.

And yet the government does EXACTLY THAT to other people who get caught up in the many myriad number of laws that we have entangling us today. They investigate, they say that you are a "person of interest" publicly and no one cares about your reputation or your legal costs in the meantime.

IF we are to have EQUAL TREATMENT BEFORE THE LAW, then Hillary should get the same kind of crap from the government that everyone else does.

But not if it hurts Hillary? Why? What makes Hillary so special?

JimBowie1958 she wants to be the first woman President, as Obama the first African American president.
the Dem Party agenda forces issues into the public discourse
that require citizens to understand the Constitution in order to address properly,
instead of relying on party politics to push beliefs through govt.

It's all part of educating citizens to move toward self governance.
Thanks to Obama, more African Americans started paying attention to govt and process.
Before that, many didn't even bother to vote because their understanding of laws
was that it's for other people to control you. Too many still think that,
that you elect people who can run right over you, but that's not true.
If we all enforce the Constitutional process that limits govt,
you can make sure you are represented instead of letting party politicians run amok.

The first step was to get more citizens aware and involved.
So Obama did that, and now Trump and Clinton take it further.
Both are sending the message that people need to take back
govt or it goes to people you can't trust not to give in to corporate interests and media spin.

 

[easyt65]

'Comey Says We Haven't Changed Conclusions Since July - Clears Hillary'

'WE'.... There isn't a damn mouse in his pocket, so you can bet he means Obama and lynch!

 

[Silhouette]

Where are Trump's emails?

 

[deltex1]

You were lied to. You thought you had something and now instead of lashing out at those who lied to you...instead you're mad at me laughing at you for falling for the gag AGAIN. Hurt feelings and all.

You are an absolute idiot, and there isn't a thing you could say that I would either believe or support other than if you said you were going to kill yourself, then I'd support that.

The corruption is SO DEEP AND TOTAL in Washington that NOTHING you PROGTARDS can say can hide it. The VAST majority of Americans see it, and you can't stop it, or LIE your way around it.

Sorry.

And all on the GOP side, dumbass dupe of greedy idiot billionaire liars and thieves...

Goldman Sachs owns Hillary

Along with Soros, Quatar, on and on... the FILTH of the world. They've all invested in the clintons.

Everything you know about Soros is a disgraceful lie, dupe. Qatar is our greatest Muslim ally, and they gave money to probably the best charity in the world, not the Clintons, you brainwashed functional MORON.

HFW......High Frequecy Whiner........yo

 

[emilynghiem]

Where are Trump's emails between himself and his accountant? I want to see if a person running for government office has committed a crime against the government... We know he's skipped out on paying federal taxes for...for how many years now? Decades?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. See my signature for details..

Dear Silhouette Trump has been audited constantly are you kidding?
I know of lots of millionaires who avoid paying taxes because property and investment laws
permit so many writeoffs. That's why people in Congress keep those tax breaks,
because they use it to control their wealth. The Clintons do this, too, anyone
with knowledge of corporate finances are going to use the laws to keep the
most control of their wealth and channel money in ways they can direct.
They know how to use private corporations to do this, and the laws on tax breaks.

So if Trump hasn't been found guilty of anything why accuse him and not Clinton?

Which person took a vow of public office and yet either pushed policies
or bypassed checks that would ensure equal protection of interests of people of both parties?

Trump has shown that he obeys when his peers opposing him
threaten him with Constitutional checks/enforcement or even lawsuits.
He listens and backs off unlike Clinton who uses political connections to bypass laws.

Trump does not have those legal connections Clinton has to bypass checks and balances.
He's not a lawyer and has never pledged to put that system above the interests of the public.

sorry but all the lawyers I know end up having to support that system
which feeds off itself. lawyers can only use their own system if they
bow to other lawyers and judges who control the outcomes.

it's a dangerous incestuous cesspool, totally in violation of Constitutional
duties that money has superceded because of the cost of legal defense
that has become the worst elitist monopoly influencing everything else
subject to courts and lawsuits controlled by legal lobbyists and interests.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where are Trump's emails?

Why does it matter?

Because he was sending classified information in his emails like Hillary or is it that you just hate him so much?

Lol, idiot.

 

[francoHFW]

What would you call it, dirty finger boy? I call it case dismissed.

Not being charged.

Funny how she's never been charged for anything, hunh, dingbat dumbass brainwashed hater dupe? Ay caramba...

Dear francoHFW
Nobody has ever been charged with corruption for abuses of tax money including federal process violated for the 20 years I've seen this go on unchecked in my own neifhborhood.

People don't have equal access to legal resources or weight in the justice system. As long as corporate interests have greater ability to sue and win, ppl especially those seeking office, don't dare go against what they want.

francoHFW we can no longer tell if rape is real or not by whether charges are pressed or case is won. OJ was convicted of wrongful death in the civil suit but not of murder in the criminal case because the standards to meet were different.

It doesn't mean the wrong wasn't committed just because someone wasn't caught with prove able intent.

Shame on you on behalf of all rape victims and falsely imprisoned ppl. Who never see justice because this is decided by money!

Do you really think lawyers and judges who pad each other's campaigns for office can be trusted to recuse themselves to avoid conflict of interest politically? You really trust what you see coming from courts and media to decide guilt or innocence? As long as govt tells you what to believe, really?

Seriously, cops and DAs are VERY eager to charge people. Lawyers CAN get them off, true. Hillary has never been charged. FOR GOOD REASON.

...and that good reason is that she has the highest connections to the Justice Department and the President. It is called corruption.

There are plenty of instances where others paid a price for doing far less than she has done. They just weren't politically connected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IT'S A CONSPIRACEEEEEE!!!!!!! BULLSHYTTE, DUPE. No evidence of any such thing, or pay to play, or anything else. "I know, a tax cut for the rich!"

 

[emilynghiem]

Where are Trump's emails?

Silhouette
Where did Trump mix govt duty and office with a private server
where the govt and pubilc have a duty to investigate classified information
being transmitted and found on private servers where this is a violation of national security?

If Trump is deemed a threat to foreign relations and national security,
isn't that a thousand times worse for Clinton with classified materials
on a private server and now ACCESS to that server found through a third party laptop.

Aside from the content of the emails,
the ACCESS to it is enough to show negligence
even if no "criminal intent' can be proven.

Isn''t negligence enough to make the point
that you are trying to make with Trump, only worse
because it involved national security and classified materials?

What Trump does with govt rules and instructions, I trust him to
obey the authorities and NOT create a private server on the side that had to be
hidden in order to do that.

Trump shows his transparency every time he opens his mouth in public
and in front of cameras and speaks his mind. He doesnt hide from the
cameras as Clinton does with the press, but even flaunts his flaws.

But when it comes to rules, he listens to his peers
who have stopped him on many issues already.
He can't get away with saying slander against Cruz without a lawsuit,
or threaten to push unconstitutional immigration policies without
getting stopped by his own fellow Republicans who follow the laws.

Clinton can get away with that because she uses the Democratic
Party standard of buying influence and free passes to bypass objections
and restrictions. The Democrats have a long history of this,
and just because it isn't proven in court doesn't mean the damage isn't being done.

I've seen generations of damage done without it ever going to court
because the system is so bought out!