Could Hillary Clinton be indicted based on her newly leaked P2P emails?
BFD.How pathetic to grasp at straws to keep alive a failed 30 year campaign of smears and disinformation.How shameful to turn this country into a banana republic by prosecuting a defeated opponent on pathetic made up “crimes.”How ironic that Hilary-hater Judicial Watch calls for “a serious criminal investigation by an independent Trump Justice Department." A TRUMP Justice Department? How about the “United States Justice Department” to start with?Maybe the TRUMP Justice Department should instead go after Dick Cheney. After all, Cheney really did commit a felony when he blew the cover of a clandestine CIA officer (spy) searching for evidence of nuclear proliferation in a dangerous overseas posting — just because Cheney was mad that her non-CIA husband wouldn't play ball on political issues.That's real news, not “fake” news. Remember, Scooter Libby took the fall for him and got his sentence commuted, removing the incentive for him to finger Cheney? A real hero.[By the way, for those who are puzzled, like I was, by the “leak” reference, this actually concerns a Freedom of Informarion Act release by the State Department. The ‘criminal’ behavior mentioned by Fox is ludicrous — help with some travel visas, a knock on Joe Biden’s performance on a Mexico tour, and worst of all tips for Clinton’s State Department speechwriter from the mother of Clinton’s State Department chief of staff on how to write an official State Department speech by Clinton at a women’s university in Saudi Arabia. Lots of secret stuff like, “"try not to offend them with this …”]
BBC's linguistics program says Mike Pence wrote the NYTimes op-ed. Why would he choose that paper as a conservative?
I'm pretty sure BBC is just making an educated guess. Personally, I don't think it was Pence. He's not the kind of guy to make waves like that.But, whoever chose that paper did it because the Times is a very respected paper.Here is where a lot of people 'get it wrong': The news you see in the paper and on the major channels are very honest. They HAVE to be, or they will lose advertising. ---That is what they are in business for. Grief, just look at how much newspaper you get each day, then try to cut out the ads and see what's left. About 80% of that paper is ads! Same on TV; They are selling over 10 minutes an hour of ads. If you don't think so, just time it for an hour.The only network that doesn't really care is Fox, because they are not selling their stock on the open market; they are owned by two brothers in Canada. The rest of the networks need to b honest so the stock makes money. If newspapers and networks start telling lies and other "Fake News", you will see them fold up, or they will be in the racks at the checkout counter with those other rags full of stories about the Martians and divorced or ready-to-die movie stars.Yes, sometimes they do get the story wrong when they rush to meet the deadline, but if they do, they will admit it and apologize for it.Bottom line, whoever wrote it chose the NYT because they KNOW that is an honest paper, and they would not print it unless they thought it was indeed fact. IMO, there have already been three books out of that White House, all pretty-much saying the same thing: ---The White house has problems.Face it, America; the Emperor has no clothes! He lies when he says "Hello", and I would not trust him with my pocket change, much less with nuclear weapons. The real sad thing is he is going to leave us with a whole lot of bills unpaid and a lot of former friends lost, and a lot of really sad people standing around broke saying "How come nobody told us?" Well, you were told. You just refused to listen.