Leaked memo shows Clinton was provided questions ahead of interview......

Hard to do when you've never done anything for anyone but yourself.

 

Another example of how you have a faulty sense of proportion.

You look at innuendo against Clinton -- much of it fanned by partisans -- and assume there is something there and it is massive.

You look at Trump's long history of PROVEN scamming, lying and cheating, and think it is small potatoes.

You think the completely bull(*)(*)(*)(*) "rumors" about Clinton getting debate questions in advance might be credible -- even though their source is a fake news site, which cites no verifiable evidence or sources, and which has not been corroborated by any other source, including Fox News itself. This calls your judgement into serious question.

Given all that, I'd say that if you claim something, there's an excellent chance that the OPPOSITE is true.

 

Lmao....despite the leak which the Lwingers still can't figure out. Nothing changes from the Hill/ ABC wanting Answers over it. Which naturally Team Clinton wont answer.

 

Agreed. If you're only going to talk to people who will provide the questions ahead of time, you're not fit to be president -- so add another reason not to vote for her to the stack...

Again, agreed. If a law doesn't require intent, I assume it was written that way for a reason; saying that no trial is needed (with respect to classified information being stored on a private server) because no intent can be shown is simply wrong, as that requirement does not exist in the law.
Director Comey should be ashamed of himself (to say nothing of the entire Justice Department).

Ok, so when was the last time Hillary decided to do a hardball type show? She likes to say she talks to the media all the time, referring to the Steve Harveys and Jimmy Kimmels of the media world. That's probably how she'd operate if elected president. She has a standing invitation to go on the O'Reilly Factor and other not-so-friendly shows; think we'll see her on those anytime soon? Not a chance. The Clinton strategy: stay out of the news, and hope that enough people have drank the koolaid to put her over the top. Unfortunately, the strategy could very well get her into the White House. Sad, really...

Still not sure why those who point out Clinton deficiencies have to be polishing Trump's turds. Want to explain that one?

 

And your voting for dishonesty and corruption. That can't follow rules, protocols, and laws. While giving up breaches of National Security, and compromising others in the US government.

So save the attempt at morality and accepting whats unethical and just not Right.

 

Wow. Somebody "leaked" the fact that Steve Harvey treated Clinton the same way he treats many of his interview subjects. SHOCK! SCANDAL!

Steve Harvey is ENTERTAINMENT. He does not pretend to be a hard-hitting interviewer. Please get that through your skull.

Since it's a nothingburger, who cares?

 

A person in the Private Sector...or someone in the highest levels of Government.

Sorry Ray, the people arent as stupid as your side needs them to be. The difference in the possibile levels of corruption, and the reaches of each is as obvious as the grass being green.

Obviously you have no idea what proportion means if you dont see it....or you're simply a dishonest Liberal.

I know which one you are, but dont need another infraction so I'll leave it up to you to guess.

 

Hillary's cheating and corruption knows no bounds. Just like her husband's willy

 

As an aside, it's pretty funny that you're trying to make this argument when Trump openly avoids unfriendly media venues, and when he does face tough questions, he fumbles them -- then retreats to his safe spaces ("Fox and Friends" and Twitter) to complain.

It's fair to say that Hillary hasn't gone out of her way to subject herself to tough interviews. But she hasn't shied away from them, either. And it's clear she is able to handle off-the-cuff questions.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/25/491311747/tallying-hillary-clintons-appearances-with-the-news-media

I kind of like the anti-Hillary spin on the last point. "Nearly a fifth" of the interviews weren't by journalists! In other words, 80% of her interviews WERE with journalists.

Later, it notes that in terms of newspaper interviews, she has averaged "barely one a week." In other words, EVERY WEEK Hillary has sat down for an interview with a newspaper.

So yes, she is giving media interviews ALL THE TIME, in a variety of settings and contexts.

 

LOL at posters on this thread who still don't understand that all media outlets treat Hillary Clinton the same. No one gives her any difficult questions, everyone treats her with kid gloves. Hillary Clinton is the mainstream media candidate and this is the most biased presidential election in history of the USA. If not beyond U.S borders. I don''t see any difference between the U.S media and the Soviet media apparatus during USSR. They also rallied behind one candidate. You still don't get it, do you?

 

ROFLMAO....tell that to Hillary who still has to fake her way thru a show that's considered entertainment.

- - - Updated - - -

Cmon now.....the leftness likes to deal with the petty. As its the only chance they can show some smart powers. Well just a little.

 

So you're going to make the obvious grifter president because he hasn't been in government, and so hasn't had the opportunity to explore the really large opportunities for corruption?

This makes sense to you?

Do you also think we should have heroin addicts guarding the confiscated heroin supply?

You really need to stop and ask yourself why you believe every false rumor and innuendo about Clinton, but dismiss PROVEN evidence about Trump.

 

LOL at one of PF's best-known conspiracy theorists.

The entire media is one monolithic bloc that has a unified agenda and every single one of them -- all the tens of thousands of reporters, editors, photographers -- are IN THE TANK! It's so unfair!

Do you even bother LISTENING to yourself?

- - - Updated - - -

Er ... you know what entertainment means, right?

 

I see you conceded my point, (as if you had any real choice), and moved to an emotion based rant.

Par for the course with you libs Ray.

 

Tell her go for the guest role on the Captain Kangaroo Show.....Oh wait, she can get more time with Bozo the Clown's show.

 

???

???

Wow. Reality doesn't have much impact on you, does it?

 

It was up to the FBI to discover whether or not crimes against national security and classified information laws and protocol were committed, and if found, to recommend indictments of the persons believed to have committed the crimes to the Justice Department. Then, it would be up to the Justice Department to get into the deliberations of the specific allegations themselves, bring charges, and explore the vagaries of such esoteric aspects as "intent".

Comey made this "intent" requirement for an indictment recommendation to the Justice Department entirely by HIMSELF. Comey should be forced to resign, the entire fraudulent, corrupted "investigation" results thrown out, and a Special Prosecutor appointed to clean up this despicable pile of (*)(*)(*)(*) once and for all.

 

LOL...the old pretending not to understand tactic.

You tried to pretend the levels of corruption between a Trump or Hillary were all the same. Even saying I didnt understand proportion when I pointed out the difference.

Yet then this happened.

Clearly pointing it out again for someone who "didnt get it".

To which you stopped trying to refute that there is indeed a difference in the possible levels and resulting effects of those levels of corruption....and moved right into the usual Liberal twisting and turning.

Clear as day to me, and should be to any Non Liberal reading. Sorry Ray, go pull your pants up.

 

I don't understand how special prosecutors are designated? I agree completely with your statements. Who controls that? Congress? and if so why haven't they done it?

 

it should be Standard practice to provide such questions with as much advance notice as possible.

we really do want the candidates to provide thoughtful answers to serious policy questions,

rather than be entertained with political banter and satire,

especially when it is not on a Saturday.

 

Hillary Clinton is incapable of speaking to people who will challenge her on her activities and statements. Again, Trump appears to have no problem talking to the likes of people like Chris Matthews, while Clinton won't even entertain the thought of talking to folks like Bill O'Reilly. She won't shy away from tough interviews? Two words: PUH - LEEZ.

Incorrect. All media personalities that Secretary Clinton will talk to treat her in the same way. But I can almost guarantee you that folks like Bill O'Reilly would not treat Hillary Clinton in that same way. Gee, you think that might be why the chances of her actually doing an interview with O'Reilly are nil? Something about the chance of snowy round things showing up in the netherworld comes to mind...

 

Er ... there's a common discussion tactic in which you assume what the other person is saying is true, and demonstrate that it fails even under its own logic.

In this case, I was pointing out that even if you accept that corruption in government has the potential to be 10 times worse than corruption in the private sector, it STILL makes no sense to elect Trump. Because that's just putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Never mind that I never tried to "refute that there is indeed a difference in the possible levels and resulting effects of those levels of corruption." I agree that government offers many opportunities for corruption -- more opportunities than someone in private business.

But that wasn't what we were discussing. We were discussing the specific corruption levels of two specific individuals -- Trump and Clinton.

What I was pointing out is that almost everything used to paint Clinton as "corrupt" is either a lie or innuendo -- all very short on actual proof. Yes, she serves in government, where the opportunities for corruption are larger -- but there's no actual evidence that she has engaged in corruption.

Meanwhile, Trump has a long and documented history of lying, cheating and scamming.

Hence my point: why would you put Trump, the PROVEN grifter, in charge of the henhouse?

 

Because, if they prosecute Clinton, then they have to look into the Clinton Foundation, because all roads lead back there. And if they do that, then the US government itself will crumble under the corruption that is found and the number of people in the government on the take through the Clinton Foundation. Nobody is going after the Clinton Foundation because if they do it will destroy the USA and set off WW3.

This is why Comey didn't go after Clinton, even though he pretty much all but said she is guilty. They are all implicated and connected inside the Clinton Foundation.

Just yesterday, our own government admitted this. You heard about the arms dealer who was going to tell all, then suddenly the Obama administration let him walk? Yeah, we are in deep do-do & the Clinton Foundation is the steaming pile of crap.

 

I gave you evidence. You respond by ignoring the evidence in favor of your own assertions. Persuasive.

More breezy assertions, with no supporting evidence provided.

Bill O'Reilly is a partisan talking head. I do not expect candidates of either party to sit down for an interview with dumbass partisans of the opposite persuasion. That's just a waste of time, and legitimizes people who don't deserve to be legitimized.

That said, she DID sit down with O'Reilly in 2008:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/micha...ton_interview_is_toughest_shes_ever_done.html

And she has routinely dealt with interviews like this one:
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-meet-the-press-chuck-todd-emails

- - - Updated - - -

The conspiracy is YUGE, I tell you! YUGE!

Welcome back, by the way. Long time no see.

 

Hmm... No more Family Feud for me then.