Breaking: FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe...uh oh

[Wyatt earp]

Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.

So you blame the messenger not the message?

You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?

Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.

I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.

A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?

Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal

If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.

There was no reason for that war what so ever.

A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Just a reminder in case you forgot Bill Clinton , Great Britian and Russia had a deal not to attack ukraine.

Another empty promise by democrats



Wednesday, lawmaker Yuri Yekhanurov called into question the security guarantees under which Ukraine agreed to disarm and urged a revival to Ukraine’s nuclear status.

In 1994, the United States, Russia and Britain guaranteed they would not attack Ukraine, which in turn sent some 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Under the deal, the U.S., Russia and Britain undertook to respect Ukraine’s existing borders, not to use economic coercion on Ukraine and not to attack the country except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

 

[mudwhistle]

Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses.

So you blame the messenger not the message?

You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?

Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.

I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.

A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?

Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal

If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.

There was no reason for that war what so ever.

A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, citing Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

 

[forkup]

I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.

A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?

Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal

If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.

There was no reason for that war what so ever.

A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, siting Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Crimea and the Ukraine for that matter are not members so they don't fall under it's protection. Unlike you, I know a thing or 2 lol. I get why you applaud when Trump sais it. What you don't get ,probably because for you the world stops on the US border, is that in the rest of the world, the US election has profound repercussions and a president needs to be well versed, or failing that at least willing to accept advice of people who do know this stuff. Trump has shown an extraordinary unwillingness to listen to anyone but himself and has also shown a remarkable capability for pettiness and in a lot of cases even the ability to hold his tongue even when it would be in his best interest to do so.

 

[mudwhistle]

Maybe we should stop talking about foreign policy and just focus on climate change, bathrooms for transsexuals, and Blacklivesmatter.

 

[forkup]

I have a major problem actually with the entire party finance system. It's a system that invites corruption. But that's not the point I'm making. I don't like Clinton, but she does have a clear grasp on international politics. Something Trump has shown to not have.

A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?

Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal

If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.

There was no reason for that war what so ever.

A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Just a reminder in case you forgot Bill Clinton , Great Britian and Russia had a deal not to attack ukraine.

Another empty promise by democrats



Wednesday, lawmaker Yuri Yekhanurov called into question the security guarantees under which Ukraine agreed to disarm and urged a revival to Ukraine’s nuclear status.

In 1994, the United States, Russia and Britain guaranteed they would not attack Ukraine, which in turn sent some 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Under the deal, the U.S., Russia and Britain undertook to respect Ukraine’s existing borders, not to use economic coercion on Ukraine and not to attack the country except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

So let me get this straight. Russia invades the Ukraine breaking a treaty and it's an empty promise by the democrats.Not sure about the logic of that one.

 

[mudwhistle]

A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?

Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal

If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.

There was no reason for that war what so ever.

A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, siting Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Crimea and the Ukraine for that matter are not members so they don't fall under it's protection. Unlike you, I know a thing or 2 lol. I get why you applaud when Trump sais it. What you don't get ,probably because for you the world stops on the US border, is that in the rest of the world, the US election has profound repercussions and a president needs to be well versed, or failing that at least willing to accept advice of people who do know this stuff. Trump has shown an extraordinary unwillingness to listen to anyone but himself and has also shown a remarkable capability for pettiness and in a lot of cases even the ability to hold his tongue even when it would be in his best interest to do so.

Yeah. Listen to your ridiculous bullshit and not respond.

The point is NATO is outdated because it doesn't cover the current threats. It doesn't address Islamic expansion or the war on terrorism. It's primarily political in nature with no teeth.

And for your information I have been deployed overseas and worked with NATO and UN troops. So blow it out your ass dirtbag.

 

[forkup]

Maybe we should stop talking about foreign policy and just focus on climate change, bathrooms for transsexuals, and Blacklivesmatter.

Yea, might be a good idea. Since foreign policy doesn't seem to agree with you.

 

[forkup]

A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, siting Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Crimea and the Ukraine for that matter are not members so they don't fall under it's protection. Unlike you, I know a thing or 2 lol. I get why you applaud when Trump sais it. What you don't get ,probably because for you the world stops on the US border, is that in the rest of the world, the US election has profound repercussions and a president needs to be well versed, or failing that at least willing to accept advice of people who do know this stuff. Trump has shown an extraordinary unwillingness to listen to anyone but himself and has also shown a remarkable capability for pettiness and in a lot of cases even the ability to hold his tongue even when it would be in his best interest to do so.

Yeah. Listen to your ridiculous bullshit and not respond.

The point is NATO is outdated because it doesn't cover the current threats. It doesn't address Islamic expansion or the war on terrorism. It's primarily political in nature with no teeth.

And for your information I have been deployed overseas and worked with NATO and UN troops. So blow it out your ass dirtbag.

Well apparently you don't know which nations are members and which aren't so I'm sorry but that's the information your posts gave, so I drew my conclusions. And like I told you before I'm not against renegotiation of NATO. But I want the future president to have a clear understanding of his or hers responsibilities and the ability to accept or the knowledge of international politics and only one of the two candidates seem to be fitting that bill.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, siting Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Crimea and the Ukraine for that matter are not members so they don't fall under it's protection. Unlike you, I know a thing or 2 lol. I get why you applaud when Trump sais it. What you don't get ,probably because for you the world stops on the US border, is that in the rest of the world, the US election has profound repercussions and a president needs to be well versed, or failing that at least willing to accept advice of people who do know this stuff. Trump has shown an extraordinary unwillingness to listen to anyone but himself and has also shown a remarkable capability for pettiness and in a lot of cases even the ability to hold his tongue even when it would be in his best interest to do so.

Yeah. Listen to your ridiculous bullshit and not respond.

The point is NATO is outdated because it doesn't cover the current threats. It doesn't address Islamic expansion or the war on terrorism. It's primarily political in nature with no teeth.

And for your information I have been deployed overseas and worked with NATO and UN troops. So blow it out your ass dirtbag.

Well apparently you don't know which nations are members and which aren't so I'm sorry but that's the information your posts gave, so I drew my conclusions. And like I told you before I'm not against renegotiation of NATO. But I want the future president to have a clear understanding of his or hers responsibilities and the ability to accept or the knowledge of international politics and only one of the two candidates seem to be fitting that bill.

I know Ukraine isn't a member God Dammit!
The point I made was NATO isn't able to address current threats.

You made my point for me but still don't know it.

 

[depotoo]

You see, kids today are not taught of ethics and what it means within the scope of government. They see Chicago style politics ok, as long as it is a way and means to their end.

Yup might even be true. My question is 2-fold. You accuse Clinton of, if I'm reading it correctly, being stupid (possible illegal). In the meantime, the candidate for the republican ticket, called NATO obsolete and questioned the US honoring it's commitments to NATO ( really stupid). Called on Russia to hack Clinton's E-mails, ( possibly treason). And called for assassination of an elected president ( possibly illegal and for sure immoral). So which one of these choices is the worst? And why the double standard?

The NATO agreement needs to be renegotiated. America is broke. And Trump didn't call for Russia to hack Clinton's emails. Her server has long been retired, so there's nothing to hack. He did ask, sarcastically, for them to produce any hacked emails they might have. Only a brain-dead moron would claim he said hack her server.

You think Putin interpreted it as sarcastic? He emboldens a leader of a nation which has territorial ambitions by saying that, and emboldens him some more when calling NATO obsolete. America is broke but still spends about the same amount on defense as the next 10 countries combined, so claiming they are not , as they are the biggest player on the NATO table is ridiculous. Actions AND words have consequences. So again what is the better choice? A candidate who gets this simple fact or one who doesn't and who has proven to not be able to let his ego go, even if it is in his best interest.

Putin is emboldened every time he sees a picture of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.

Really?? First of, as the DNC hack showed Putin has a clear preference to what candidate he wants to win. Secondly Putin has been under pressure from Obama and Europe by trade sanctions, that's the real world politics, not what you see as the truth, through partisan glasses. Policies and cooperative relationships that are put under scrutiny when Trump opens his mouth without any real knowledge of international politics.

So you blame the messenger not the message?

You have no problem with all these shady foreigners giving millions upon millions of dollars to the clinton foundation while she was Secretary of state and now running for president?

Sounds to me she is bought and sold to the highest bidder.

 

[mudwhistle]

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, siting Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Crimea and the Ukraine for that matter are not members so they don't fall under it's protection. Unlike you, I know a thing or 2 lol. I get why you applaud when Trump sais it. What you don't get ,probably because for you the world stops on the US border, is that in the rest of the world, the US election has profound repercussions and a president needs to be well versed, or failing that at least willing to accept advice of people who do know this stuff. Trump has shown an extraordinary unwillingness to listen to anyone but himself and has also shown a remarkable capability for pettiness and in a lot of cases even the ability to hold his tongue even when it would be in his best interest to do so.

Yeah. Listen to your ridiculous bullshit and not respond.

The point is NATO is outdated because it doesn't cover the current threats. It doesn't address Islamic expansion or the war on terrorism. It's primarily political in nature with no teeth.

And for your information I have been deployed overseas and worked with NATO and UN troops. So blow it out your ass dirtbag.

Well apparently you don't know which nations are members and which aren't so I'm sorry but that's the information your posts gave, so I drew my conclusions. And like I told you before I'm not against renegotiation of NATO. But I want the future president to have a clear understanding of his or hers responsibilities and the ability to accept or the knowledge of international politics and only one of the two candidates seem to be fitting that bill.

What makes you think a total fuck up like Hillary is a good choice. She can talk the talk but she has proved to be a total disaster when it comes to action on the ground, mainly because of her political rather than tactical or strategic approach to everything.

 

[g5000]

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe


The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned."


Should Hillary WITHDRAW from the presidential campaign?


.

14,900 spam emails for Viagra, human growth hormone, Russian mail order brides, and how to make your penis three inches longer.

 

[easyt65]

14,900 spam emails for Viagra, human growth hormone, Russian mail order brides, and how to make your penis three inches longer.

Well, and the newly released Huma e-mails, courtesy of judicial Watch's FOIA Request, that explains / shows how a Saudi Prince had to pay $32 Million to the Clinton Foundation before being allowed to have an audience with the Secretary of State...and how a Clinton Foundation Employee sent an e-mail to State Department employee Huma referring to Hillary as 'OUR' boss.

 

[HenryBHough]

Just a matter of time and everybody from jaywalkers to serial killers will be walking out of court based on their successful "Hillary Defense". This beats hell out of the legendary "Twinkie Defense"!

I think I'll go rob somebody.......but I'll have to remember to lie about it if I want to walk free....

 

[Wyatt earp]

A clear grasp? You mean when she was so gun hole to attack Libya that the Pentagon and her own party tried to go behind her back and stop it?

Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal

If she was bush Jr. We would of never heard the end of it.

There was no reason for that war what so ever.

A couple of things. The obvious, what the congressman did using back channels and undermining the official decision of the administration I find tantamount to treason and I don't consider the word of the spokesperson of one of the most ruthless dictators of the latter half of the 20th century as particularly reliable. Secondly Clinton by advocating intervention went with past experiences and as current events in Syria show, dictators targeting their own populace to keep power isn't exactly unheard of. She also wasn't the only person to do so as your article showed since she had support for her position both internally and internationally. Their is a clear difference between a knowledgeable person making choices that hindsight might critisise and. Trump claiming NATO is obsolete because it plays well with his supporters not taking into consideration, the consequences of that statement if he would win the elections. The first 1 is a judgement call, the second one is simple ignorance.

Nope. NATO is a bad deal for the US. We're stuck with paying for the defense of countries that can afford to pay for their own defense. Only an ignorant progressive sycophant would think otherwise. Trump is spot on with this but your handlers are telling you he's wrong in a silly attempt to make him look unqualified.

NATO is an alliance that is outdated and was created to prevent Soviet expansion.

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Just a reminder in case you forgot Bill Clinton , Great Britian and Russia had a deal not to attack ukraine.

Another empty promise by democrats



Wednesday, lawmaker Yuri Yekhanurov called into question the security guarantees under which Ukraine agreed to disarm and urged a revival to Ukraine’s nuclear status.

In 1994, the United States, Russia and Britain guaranteed they would not attack Ukraine, which in turn sent some 1,900 nuclear warheads to Russia and signed on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state.

Under the deal, the U.S., Russia and Britain undertook to respect Ukraine’s existing borders, not to use economic coercion on Ukraine and not to attack the country except in self-defense or in accordance with the U.N. Charter.

So let me get this straight. Russia invades the Ukraine breaking a treaty and it's an empty promise by the democrats.Not sure about the logic of that one.

It was an agreement not to invade if they gave up their nukes.

Russia a track on Crimea was in essance an attack on the U.S.A and great Britain.

 

[mudwhistle]

Just a matter of time and everybody from jaywalkers to serial killers will be walking out of court based on their successful "Hillary Defense". This beats hell out of the legendary "Twinkie Defense"!

I think I'll go rob somebody.......but I'll have to remember to lie about it if I want to walk free....

No.....the Hillary defense only works for Hillary, because she is too big to jail.

 

[forkup]

In case you haven't noticed Russia has annexed 1 sovereign nation and invaded another one, in the last 5 years. So saying NATO is outdated because Russia isn't expansionist anymore doesn't work. He's also holding major military exercises in the North, targeted at the Baltic states. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are all members of NATO an organisation that Trump openly questioned. Trump takes office and what do you think will happen? Now if you want to renegotiate the NATO charter, fine but you don't do it publicly, you do it privately. And what you never, ever do is do it because it plays well as a soundbite.

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, siting Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Crimea and the Ukraine for that matter are not members so they don't fall under it's protection. Unlike you, I know a thing or 2 lol. I get why you applaud when Trump sais it. What you don't get ,probably because for you the world stops on the US border, is that in the rest of the world, the US election has profound repercussions and a president needs to be well versed, or failing that at least willing to accept advice of people who do know this stuff. Trump has shown an extraordinary unwillingness to listen to anyone but himself and has also shown a remarkable capability for pettiness and in a lot of cases even the ability to hold his tongue even when it would be in his best interest to do so.

Yeah. Listen to your ridiculous bullshit and not respond.

The point is NATO is outdated because it doesn't cover the current threats. It doesn't address Islamic expansion or the war on terrorism. It's primarily political in nature with no teeth.

And for your information I have been deployed overseas and worked with NATO and UN troops. So blow it out your ass dirtbag.

Well apparently you don't know which nations are members and which aren't so I'm sorry but that's the information your posts gave, so I drew my conclusions. And like I told you before I'm not against renegotiation of NATO. But I want the future president to have a clear understanding of his or hers responsibilities and the ability to accept or the knowledge of international politics and only one of the two candidates seem to be fitting that bill.

I know Ukraine isn't a member God Dammit!
The point I made was NATO isn't able to address current threats.

You made my point for me but still don't know it.

You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, citing Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Since NATO isn't in any way shape or form responsible for the Crimea, I read that sentence as you not knowing who's a member and who wasn't. Just to point out why I came to my conclusions. Anyways NATO and this is my opinion is an organisation which like you pointed out isn't designed with international terrorism, in mind. But and this is my original point is designed as a way to prevent Russia from getting territorial ambitions, offering protection to it's member nations. As current event prove something that has become relevant again. Current treats need to be addressed globally not by an organisation that by it's very nature excludes several major powers. This belongs in the UN not NATO and it doesn't invalidate the usefulness of NATO as you seem to suggest.

 

[mudwhistle]

Uh....isn't this an election year....and isn't this really just an example of the way Globalists are constantly giving the US the short end of the stick?

You people always argue as if you're living in a vacuum. The last time any NATO action was effective was over 20 years ago. You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, siting Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Crimea and the Ukraine for that matter are not members so they don't fall under it's protection. Unlike you, I know a thing or 2 lol. I get why you applaud when Trump sais it. What you don't get ,probably because for you the world stops on the US border, is that in the rest of the world, the US election has profound repercussions and a president needs to be well versed, or failing that at least willing to accept advice of people who do know this stuff. Trump has shown an extraordinary unwillingness to listen to anyone but himself and has also shown a remarkable capability for pettiness and in a lot of cases even the ability to hold his tongue even when it would be in his best interest to do so.

Yeah. Listen to your ridiculous bullshit and not respond.

The point is NATO is outdated because it doesn't cover the current threats. It doesn't address Islamic expansion or the war on terrorism. It's primarily political in nature with no teeth.

And for your information I have been deployed overseas and worked with NATO and UN troops. So blow it out your ass dirtbag.

Well apparently you don't know which nations are members and which aren't so I'm sorry but that's the information your posts gave, so I drew my conclusions. And like I told you before I'm not against renegotiation of NATO. But I want the future president to have a clear understanding of his or hers responsibilities and the ability to accept or the knowledge of international politics and only one of the two candidates seem to be fitting that bill.

I know Ukraine isn't a member God Dammit!
The point I made was NATO isn't able to address current threats.

You made my point for me but still don't know it.

You point out exactly why NATO isn't working anymore, citing Crimea, and then act like you made a valid point in NATO'S defense.

Since NATO isn't in any way shape or form responsible for the Crimea, I read that sentence as you not knowing who's a member and who wasn't. Just to point out why I came to my conclusions. Anyways NATO and this is my opinion is an organisation which like you pointed out isn't designed with international terrorism, in mind. But and this is my original point is designed as a way to prevent Russia from getting territorial ambitions, offering protection to it's member nations. As current event prove something that has become relevant again. Current treats need to be addressed globally not by an organisation that by it's very nature excludes several major powers. This belongs in the UN not NATO and it doesn't invalidate the usefulness of NATO as you seem to suggest.

In case you haven't been paying attention, the UN is worthless and corrupt. They have been co-opted by terrorist supporters. They are worse than useless.

I can tell you don't have a clue on this subject. You're just repeating Globalist propaganda and spewing nonsense.

 

[francoHFW]

OP- ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ "Nothing criminal, no intent", NADA, hater dupes.

Extremely careless. Good enough for me. Keep her out of the White House unless she has a visitor's pass.

Clinton’s e-mail ‘scandals’ are pure fiction - The Boston Globe

 

[hadit]

OP- ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ "Nothing criminal, no intent", NADA, hater dupes.

Extremely careless. Good enough for me. Keep her out of the White House unless she has a visitor's pass.

Clinton’s e-mail ‘scandals’ are pure fiction - The Boston Globe

Does that make the FBI Director's quote a lie? Think about it.