What Made Abc Finally Tell The Truth About Obama Hillary And Benghazi Will The Other Media Follow

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 …”]

Is Donald Trump likely to win the 2016 election (late 2015/early 2016)?

It is highly unlikely that ANY candidate can win the Presidency in modern America without much support from:HispanicsBlacksWomenYouthTrump has actively alienated each of these groups at some stage of his campaign, and in many cases multiple times. He has even made alienation of some of these groups a staple of his campaign. This has made Trump perhaps the most unpopular presidential candidate among non-whites in modern American history.The following favorable-unfavorable ratings are from November 8, 2015, so the ratings are likely even worse today than they were at the time given the level of discourse from Trump since then.Even the GOP understood that they must garner support from minority groups during the 2016 election cycle in order to stand a chance. See: 6 Big Takeaways From The RNC's Incredible 2012 AutopsyTrump essentially tore up the GOP's 2016 playbook, doused it in gasoline, set it on fire, then pissed on it for good measure.Trump's primary success is almost exclusively due to his appeal to white, (mostly male) disaffected nationalists - a particularly angry and vocal subset of the GOP base. While this group may be not only sustainable, but effective for the Republican Primary, it is a death sentence for any candidate's general election hopes. The changing demographics in the US simply don't favor him. There are simply not enough white nationalists (overt racists and/or borderline racists) out there to carry a candidate like Trump to victory.I predict that Trump will attempt to pivot and alter his message during the general election being the shapeshifter that he is, but I don't see that being a successful strategy. Unlike his current base of supporters who appear to be immune to rampant, pathological lying, general election voters have already seen through his bullshit and will not be so easily swayed by his shifting rhetoric.

Is Sarah Palin smarter than Barack Obama?

True, this question is pretty inane, but not because its answer is overly evident. First, Barack Obama's IQ had been reported at either 116 or 124. While above US national average, both are relatively low for an ivy league University graduate, whose mean IQs are generally in the 130s. Most often, achievement in IQ non-intensive fields such as Law and applied Social Sciences is driven by one's conscientiousness and ambition rather than the ability to understand abstract concepts and make accurate assessments. The fact that Barack Obama is black, black in a society that highly values universal equal representation on a racial basis should not be ignored when considering his achievements. Second, there is a significant number of people that despite being able to brilliantly joggle with ideas and concepts they've come in contact with, won't appear as "smart" to the casual observer -- due to a lack of knowledge, disregard for erudition, not being challenged, sheer laziness etc. etc. Intelligence doesn't refer to the quantity of data one has memorized, but to the quality of one's interpretation and manipulation of said data. So, while highly unlikely based on what we've seen of her, Sarah Palin being smarter (having a higher IQ) than Barack Obama is fully within the realm of possibility. I find it quite disappointing that so many on Quora dismissed the question so arrogantly and so lightly. Kind of ironic to show such disregard for inquisitive thought on a topic that's about intelligence, don't you think?Edit:Article regarding Obama's intelligence and qualification. I'm not familiar with the journalist or the outlet, so I can't comment on its validity. Still, an interesting read. http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Should Hillary Clinton be in prison?

While I agree with Sierra Spaulding’s answer, there is one aspect of this question that I believe should continue to be discussed by every citizen in America. It’s an incredibly important question.Consider that during the Republican’s politically contrived scam of an investigation into the Benghazi scandal, Hillary Clinton voluntarily put herself under oath and testified to Congress about her emails. She made many statements under oath. And as a lawyer herself, an officer of the court, she knew the importance of that oath.In FBI Director James Comey’s later testimony to Congress, immediately after his dismissal of criminal conduct, he was asked, also under oath to Congress:Hillary Clinton said “I did not email classified material. There was no classified material.” Was that true?Director Comey replied, “There was classified material emailed.” He went on to explain that 110 emails were marked classified at the time they were sent or received by Secretary Clinton. 36 of them were Secret and 8 of them were Top Secret.Secretary Clinton said she used just one device [which she said was done for convenience, which was her justification of the server]. Was that true?Director Comey replied, “She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.” He went on to explain that most of those devices had been wiped or destroyed so they could not be examined by law enforcement.Secrertay Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?Director Comey replied, “No. We found work-related emails, thousands, that were not returned.”So, the question we must continue to ask is this. Does it matter when someone is able to lie under oath? If Hillary Clinton can lie under oath without being punished for it, then why should we not just do away with the requirement of swearing under oath? It no longer means anything, does it?President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to Congress. He was impeached because testifying to Congress used to matter. The question we should ask ourselves, as Americans, is do we care any more whether a person is sworn under oath and lies? Is perjury no longer a crime?This is a discussion that must continue.