2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Fr Tod Umptious

Overheal wrote: »

And the news story that will steal the show: Trumps 13 year old rape victim, Jane Doe, scheduled to break her silence

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-woman-who-sued-trump-for-allegedly-raping-her-when-she-was-13-to-speak-out/

But is Epstein not tainted material when it comes to all this, in the sense that Bill and he are buddies.

But if true then its surely the nail in the Trump coffin and the confirmation that Tim Kwill be next president

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

A new powerful ad by Trump that will get a lot of airplay in the final days of the election, and will resonate with a lot of people, especially with all the recent information coming out about Hillary...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vppk3R6eDuU

Probably the best commercial of his, yet.

It's probably the perfect commercial for low information voters, if that's what you mean by the "best".

Makes random allegations about pay to play, suspicious donors and finished with the FBI investigation. Except the FBI investigation is nothing to do with accusations of pay to play or donations to the Clinton foundation, anyone who actually pays attention to the news knows exactly what the investigation is related to.

It's a typical Trump attack.

This ad sums up exactly my issues with Trump:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-daisy-ad-trump-230528

K-9

Mod:
Hi, there's a thread about university bias on the front page for people to dicuss that subject.

Nabber

This debate throws up one the biggest questions of the internet era. What relevance if any will main stream media play in our lives?

We see time after time the influence the media has on our everyday life. The media is the single biggest factor in all elections globally.

I'm inclined to open forums, public speeches or verbatim reports. When we move to media summaries and interpretations that's when agendas set in.

I watched CNN in Hillarys last speech in FL. CNN showed people singing and dancing, yet in BBC, whom I believe favour Democrats showed a lifeless and dull affair.

Media should be impartial, something which I don't think any Hillary supporter can say has been the case.
I don't think it's a conspiracy, more so people protecting their investments.

I wonder if Saunders V Rubio would have been better for USA

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

One thing we tend to forget is Comey told Congress he would provide updates if any new information was obtained. That seems to be what he did.

Except , when he made the announcement he didn't have new information , they hadn't even read the emails yet (and still haven't as I understand it)

Essentially what he knew at the time was "Someone connected to someone that works for Hillary uses eMail"

It remains to be seen if there is anything to be found (without question , there absolutely could be and those involved can carry the impact of those findings) but Comey knew nothing about this at the time of his update to Congress and he still knows nothing for sure..

So given that context, for him to suggest that he was obligated to update Congress is more than a bit of a stretch...

PopePalpatine

It has emerged Trump didn't declare cancelled debts - which would have counted as taxable income - along with the c.$900m in losses that have enabled him to dodge taxes.

Amerika

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Except , when he made the announcement he didn't have new information , they hadn't even read the emails yet (and still haven't as I understand it)

Essentially what he knew at the time was "Someone connected to someone that works for Hillary uses eMail"

It remains to be seen if there is anything to be found (without question , there absolutely could be and those involved can carry the impact of those findings) but Comey knew nothing about this at the time of his update to Congress and he still knows nothing for sure..

So given that context, for him to suggest that he was obligated to update Congress is more than a bit of a stretch...

So you KNOW FOR A FACT that agents didn't find any new information that warranted reopening the investigation?

Quin_Dub

Amerika wrote: »

So you KNOW FOR A FACT that agents didn't find any new information that warranted reopening the investigation?

What I know is what they've said themselves- When Comey made his announcement they had not yet read any of the emails , they were still working on obtaining the necessary warrants.

They had the computer from Weiner , they knew that there were email archives present on the system that appeared to be from an account owned/operated by Huma Abedin and that's pretty much the extent of the information available to Comey at the time of his letter to Congress..

Could there be a smoking gun in those files? Absolutely , of course there could be , but at the time of Comey's announcement (and as far as we know , still) there was no evidence of anything good bad or otherwise.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

So you KNOW FOR A FACT that agents didn't find any new information that warranted reopening the investigation?

Wow that escalated quickly. Defensive much?

If they did, they did so without a warrant and whatever they found could be inadmissible. So you better hope so

mrkiscool2

Right, I don't know much about the intricacies of how searching a laptop works (remember, they had the laptop as they were investigating Child Pornography) but I have a fair idea.

They would have checked the history and hard-drive and would have discovered that emails had been sent from Hillary's private server to the laptop, and that emails had been sent from the laptop to Clinton's server. Easy to trace things like that. So, while they have no idea what is in the emails, they know that those emails came from and went to the server that was bleached. Hence, they can connect dots and obtain a warrant for the emails. They didn't have to view any of the emails but they can safetly assume that it was part of a previous investigation which, while closed, can be re-opened if any new information came to light. Which it did, from Weiner's laptop.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

So you KNOW FOR A FACT that agents didn't find any new information that warranted reopening the investigation?

Any messages that came from Hillary's server warranted further investigation, and the metadata flagging those on Weiner's laptop was sufficient. It's entirely possible however, that Abedin was upfront about her working process on unclassified emails from this server, and that the thousands of emails associated with her are exactly as she described. The only twist is that she forwarded them on to Weiner's laptop to print out. The problem for Hillary witch-hunters is that none of that really changes anything with regard to criminal culpability. It might warrant some non-criminal sanction for Abedin, but I even have my doubts about that.

My prediction is that after weeks of some poor sap's time reading through thousands of office correspondence, we'll find that it's simply more of the same, except in this case, one more step removed from Hillary. So far we've had thousands of emails trawled through to uncover three marked classified documents, two of which weren't actually classifed at all, a bunch of unmarked classifed material, which was therefore treated as unclassified material, and a singular legit marked classified document. Just the one, mind. I don't expect this Weiner laptop to be a treasure trove of classifed material, if only because that's not been the case with the rest of the emails.

aloyisious

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So if a black person(s) decide not to vote this is racism? Where is your proof that the drop is because both candidates are white? Personally if I lived in the states I wouldn't vote either, does that make me a racist also?

I think you should look up the term racism to try better understand it's meaning

Have you read this NYT article re the choice of black voters not voting, apparently because there is no black president on the ticket. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/politics/black-turnout-falls-in-early-voting-boding-ill-for-hillary-clinton.html.

All things being equal (NO PUN INTENDED) this could be read to mean the voters choice was because the four people running for President are white and seen as not likely to be as active on black affairs as on white affairs, with the two main contenders just after the votes without any sincere intent on following up on election promises. It'w entirely possible that the authors have got it wrong and might be pro- Hillary being temporarily disheartened by the swings in the polls.

aloyisious

Anyone here in this debate from the US, or from the media industry, know whether "True Pundit" is worthwhile quoting on the investigation? I was looking for info on which police agency seized the laptop the FBI now has possession of...

alastair

aloyisious wrote: »

Anyone here in this debate from the US, or from the media industry, know whether "True Pundit" is worthwhile quoting on the investigation? I was looking for info on which police agency seized the laptop the FBI now has possession of...

My understanding is that the warrant for seizing Weiner's data was issued by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, so that would be a DoJ seizure, and both the NYPD and the FBI are involved in the Weiner sexting investigation, which is a federal one, as the minor was outside NY.

aloyisious

alastair wrote: »

My understanding is that the warrant for seizing Weiner's data was issued by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, so that would be a DoJ seizure, and both the NYPD and the FBI are involved in the Weiner sexting investigation, which is a federal one, as the minor was outside NY.

I'm asking because of this article in "True Pundit", which may be based on sand...... I've never heard of True Pundit before so don't know if it's reporting is reliable, or just B/S. It's so exploitive of human credulity.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiM8Oz5kovQAhXmDcAKHQifA0oQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftruepundit.com%2Fbreaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury%2F&usg=AFQjCNFLpE9qaUn4-FJ38h0ndugqMcddgQ

4068ac1elhodqr

Amerika wrote: »

A new powerful ad by Trump that will get a lot of airplay in the final days of the election

A triple 30sec late ad buy for the World Series Final, not cheap but a media planners dream slot. Powerful enough ads, a little simplistic perhaps, with subtle accidental comical overtones of superhero about them all.

alastair

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm asking because of this article in "True Pundit", which may be based on sand...... I've never heard of True Pundit before so don't know if it's reporting is reliable, or just B/S.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiM8Oz5kovQAhXmDcAKHQifA0oQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftruepundit.com%2Fbreaking-bombshell-nypd-blows-whistle-on-new-hillary-emails-money-laundering-sex-crimes-with-children-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury%2F&usg=AFQjCNFLpE9qaUn4-FJ38h0ndugqMcddgQ

Well - The BS quotient in that article is pretty pretty high.

aloyisious

alastair wrote: »

Well - The BS quotient in that article is pretty pretty high.

Glad I went for a verifiable source, I was thinking it so........ whatever! I guess I'll ignore True Pundit and stick with National Enquirer. Show's what pops up when asking what Police agency seized the Weiner laptop in connection with the under-age sex offences case.

Amerika

There are ten bellwether counties that could decide this election. I live in one, Northpton County, PA. It is crazy the amount of ads the campaigns have been placing on TV and radio the last couple of days. Add to that all the phone calls I'm getting. Just a personal observation, but it looks like Clinton is outspending Trump at least four to one. Odd also that neither candidate has come here this election. I usually go see one presidential rally each election. But this year... Nothing. I've seen GW Bush, McCain, Palin, and Biden in the past.

http://axiomstrategies.com/abc/

FISMA.

There's a spike in early voters wanting a "do-over."

In many states, early voters - that have already submitted their ballot, can request to change their vote and may do so once.

Not looking good for the leader at that time.

aloyisious

FISMA. wrote: »

There's a spike in early voters wanting a "do-over."

In many states, early voters - that have already submitted their ballot, can request to change their vote and may do so once.

Not looking good for the leader at that time.

One strange idea.. Who acts to ensure the original ballot paper is recovered to ensure there's no double-voting for one candidate, and it's destroyed and is the act witnessed by the voter concerned to avoid claims of vote-rigging?

aloyisious

Watching Don on CNN at his latest rally telling the crowd to cool it, saying to himself "stay on point Don, stay on point" then tells the crowd that Hillary is unhinged and has been for the past few days.....

FISMA.

aloyisious wrote: »

One strange idea.. Who acts to ensure the original ballot paper is recovered to ensure there's no double-voting for one candidate, and it's destroyed and is the act witnessed by the voter concerned to avoid claims of vote-rigging?

Good question. There are multiple states with their own laws. So, we'd have to look in to it state by state.

Also, so much for secret ballots. I suppose they count your vote and then alphabetize the ballot.

Some states limit the "closing" date. For at least one state, today was the last day to change your vote.

Timberrrrrrrr

aloyisious wrote: »

Have you read this NYT article re the choice of black voters not voting, apparently because there is no black president on the ticket. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/us/politics/black-turnout-falls-in-early-voting-boding-ill-for-hillary-clinton.html.

All things being equal (NO PUN INTENDED) this could be read to mean the voters choice was because the four people running for President are white and seen as not likely to be as active on black affairs as on white affairs, with the two main contenders just after the votes without any sincere intent on following up on election promises. It'w entirely possible that the authors have got it wrong and might be pro- Hillary being temporarily disheartened by the swings in the polls.

Even if that is all true it still does not equate to " racism".

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

There's a spike in early voters wanting a "do-over."

In many states, early voters - that have already submitted their ballot, can request to change their vote and may do so once.

Not looking good for the leader at that time.

“People by and large are not going to go through the extraordinary measures to change their votes,” Michael McDonald, a political science professor at the University of Florida, tells the Monitor. “I tend to think that this is just more rhetoric and a stunt than a way to change the dynamic of the election.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2016/1102/Some-early-voters-get-a-do-over-but-are-they-taking-it

alastair

FISMA. wrote: »

Also, so much for secret ballots. I suppose they count your vote and then alphabetize the ballot.

Absentee/early votes are sealed until Election Day. Your vote is registered, but not read until then.

FISMA.

In today's speech, Obama alluded to the KKK.

It reminds me of when Bush 41 claimed that “My dog Millie knows more about foreign affairs than these two bozos” with respect to Clinton and Gore. It just wreaked of desperation and its translation was - grab the life jackets, we're taking on water!

Looks like the Democrats are starting to lose their cool.

Play it cool lads. Play it cool.

mrkiscool2

FISMA. wrote: »

In today's speech, Obama alluded to the KKK.

It reminds me of when Bush 41 claimed that “My dog Millie knows more about foreign affairs than these two bozos” with respect to Clinton and Gore. It just wreaked of desperation and its translation was - grab the life jackets, we're taking on water!

Looks like the Democrats are starting to lose their cool.

Play it cool lads. Play it cool.

I love Obama, I think he will go down as a very good President in history but he is really trying to big Clinton up and I actually don't think he likes it. Like, when he talks about Donald he is full of fire and venom, when he talks about Clinton he is "meh". I'd say he'd much prefer to spend his last few days getting stuff through if he can and enjoying it (like he has been doing, he was hilarious on Monday night) than dealing with Clinton and trying to get her elected.

alastair

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

I love Obama, I think he will go down as a very good President in history but he is really trying to big Clinton up and I actually don't think he likes it. Like, when he talks about Donald he is full of fire and venom, when he talks about Clinton he is "meh". I'd say he'd much prefer to spend his last few days getting stuff through if he can and enjoying it (like he has been doing, he was hilarious on Monday night) than dealing with Clinton and trying to get her elected.

Obama is entirely genuine in looking to ensure Trump doesn't darken the Whitehouse doormat. He doesn't have to love Hillary to be passionately engaged in trying to ensure she's elected.

mrkiscool2

alastair wrote: »

Obama is entirely genuine in looking to ensure Trump doesn't darken the Whitehouse doormat. He doesn't have to love Hillary to be passionately engaged in trying to ensure she's elected.

I said as much (though not as eloquently). He doesn't like talking about Clinton but he is great at taking down Trump, but he has to do more than that now because of how careless Clinton is (even if she didn't do anything illegal, she was highly careless which you don't need in a President, not that Trump is less careless though).

aloyisious

alastair wrote: »

Absentee/early votes are sealed until Election Day. Your vote is registered, but not read until then.

So. if your ballot paper is in a sealed container, envelope whatever, it must at least bear your (full) registered voting name to allow it's recovery for you to change your vote. It must be a nightmare for the local returning officer when a citizen rolls up and say's "I want to change my vote" opening up of boxes etc prior to the count day.

Lol at FISMA giving Dons advice to the dems

alastair

aloyisious wrote: »

So. if your ballot paper is in a sealed container, envelope whatever, it must at least bear your (full) registered voting name to allow it's recovery for you to change your vote. It must be a nightmare for the local returning officer when a citizen rolls up and say's "I want to change my vote" opening up of boxes etc prior to the count day.

It seems to vary amongst the 8 states that allow changes of votes. From the article linked above:

But re-voting can create a logistical nightmare in states where the voting process hasn’t been digitized. While Colorado’s entirely mail-in ballot system can easily track ballots and workers can easily cancel out old ones, Wisconsin’s system isn’t equipped to handle such alterations as well.

“You’re lining up, and one person just clogs up the line,” Stein says. “You have to shut your whole operation down to find a needle in the haystack.”

But those cases occur rarely, and sometimes only at single-digit rates, experts say, making them unlikely to become an avenue for voter fraud or inaccurate results.

Black Swan

YouGov/The Economist's Benjamin Lauderdale and Douglas Rivers, as reflected in the fundamentals of their presidential election model, questioned whether the substantial poll swings that have occurred as the result of various surprises fundamentally made any significant difference in potential voter behavior? Rather, they may represent "sampling noise" that were "largely statistical mirages." Based upon their comparative analysis of 2012 and 2016 presidential elections they suggested that: "Fewer voters were changing their minds than were changing their inclination to respond to surveys." Their more conservative model "has shown a consistent lead for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump of three to five percent" over the past 3 weeks.

Of course there were others with the Clinton and Trump campaigns, the ratings-driven news media, and organisations with different election models that suggested surprises matter, and that the dynamic fluctuation in polls were not "phantom swings" as suggested by YouGov's Lauderdale and Rivers. I guess we shall see if YouGov/The Economist model had merit or not following 8 November 2016.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So if some hillbilly guy comes to this stage and is offering change and new opportunity for hillbilly people would poor white southerners be racists for voting for him in their droves instead of his black opponent ?

No, it's not racist to vote for the candidate who promises to make your life better over another candidate who doesn't even pretend to care about you.

If the white 'hillbilly' was actually an extremely honourable and progressive candidate with a proven track record for improving the conditions for minority people of all backgrounds, and he was running against Ben Carson, then it could be racist to refuse to vote for the 'hillbilly' just because he is white.

I wonder how high the turnout of minority voters would be if the race was between Sanders and Trump. We'll never know, but I suspect that a lot more minority voters would be motivated to vote for an inspirational candidate like Sanders than an establishment pro-corporate candidate like Clinton.

alastair

Akrasia wrote: »

I wonder how high the turnout of minority voters would be if the race was between Sanders and Trump. We'll never know, but I suspect that a lot more minority voters would be motivated to vote for an inspirational candidate like Sanders than an establishment pro-corporate candidate like Clinton.

One of the noted aspects of Sanders' run was that he failed to gain much traction with African American voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/why-exactly-does-bernie-sanders-struggle-with-black-and-hispanic-voters-heres-why/

Akrasia

alastair wrote: »

One of the noted aspects of Sanders' run was that he failed to gain much traction with African American voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/04/why-exactly-does-bernie-sanders-struggle-with-black-and-hispanic-voters-heres-why/

That was changing as his name became better known, and Sanders was competing for black votes as an unknown candidate versus a clinton. In this election, by now, everyone would have known Sanders' policies and positions on education, income and healhcare, and he would be a stark contrast to Donald Trump.

This is just my opinion as we're stuck with the candidates that we have, but the trends with Sanders were that the more people know about him, the more they liked him, it's the opposite with clinton. Clinton won her campaign in the first 3 months of the primaries when engagement in the election was much lower.

alastair

Akrasia wrote: »

That was changing as his name became better known, and Sanders was competing for black votes as an unknown candidate versus a clinton. In this election, by now, everyone would have known Sanders' policies and positions on education, income and healhcare, and he would be a stark contrast to Donald Trump.

He certainly would be a contrast to Trump, but Sanders was pretty well known towards the end of the campaign, and still was being trounced by Clinton in African American votes. In Alabama exit polls had Hillary on 91% to Sanders' 6%. That's not a shortfall you make up over the rest of the year.

TheDoctor

538 moves Nevada to Trump.

One state in it now.

briany

The electoral maps I'm looking at put Hillary close to the finishing line with only a few tossup states needed, if that. What's the most up-to-the-minute one I should be looking at which gives a clear picture of this apparent late surge from Trump?

Sofa Spud

briany wrote: »

The electoral maps I'm looking at put Hillary close to the finishing line with only a few tossup states needed, if that. What's the most up-to-the-minute one I should be looking at which gives a clear picture of this apparent late surge from Trump?

This map is handy for calculating the electoral votes - just click on the state to assign as blue, red or toss-up - http://www.270towin.com/maps/k44np

This is Nate Silver's site - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ - generally seen as the most accurate poll aggregator as he uses some funky statistical algorithms to weed out the wheat from the chaff.

Bottom line is that it's getting very, very close - Clinton really needs to hang on to PA - Florida could be trending to Trump, which could be yuge!

Brian?

Sofa Spud wrote: »

This map is handy for calculating the electoral votes - just click on the state to assign as blue, red or toss-up - http://www.270towin.com/maps/k44np

This is Nate Silver's site - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ - generally seen as the most accurate poll aggregator as he uses some funky statistical algorithms to weed out the wheat from the chaff.

Bottom line is that it's getting very, very close - Clinton really needs to hang on to PA - Florida could be trending to Trump, which could be yuge!

Losing Florida isn't a problem for Clinton as long as she takes PA.

Sofa Spud

Brian? wrote: »

Losing Florida isn't a problem for Clinton as long as she takes PA.

Yeah - that was my point...

alastair

I'd say Hillary will end up taking Florida by a whisker. Her firewall states seem safe enough.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Losing Florida isn't a problem for Clinton as long as she takes PA.

I don't know about PA going for Clinton, but if the polls are to be believe I guess it could happen. There are a lot of 'shy Trump voters' here that I don't beleive are being represented in the polls. My county (considered a bellwether county in this election) is supposed to go Clinton, but I just don't see it as a lock. I guess it all comes down to how the cities of Bethlehem and Easton go. The key, IMO, to winning in PA lies in the Philadelphia suburbs. We've just been hit with a 35% average hike in health care insurance premiums last week and this week, and I don't think the polls currently represent the anger people are feeling over it. But I do often hear the term bandied about... 'Damn ObamaCare.'

Sofa Spud

alastair wrote: »

I'd say Hillary will end up taking Florida by a whisker. Her firewall states seem safe enough.

It's a big one - if she hangs onto to PA it's not as important, but it would give her a better winning margin which is always good for optics and trying to claim a legitimate mandate, which she shouldn't have to do if she wins...

I think the one advantage she has is an overwhelming ground team. There's been a number of reports on the telly that shows an app her canvassers have where they can walk down a street and every registered voter has a profile where they know exactly which doors to knock on and what to talk about - they aggregate info on voters to a big brother level - education, magazine subscriptions etc. They claim to have a file on every voter - I guess one report was from the BBC, as they said the app would contravene data protection standards in Europe.

So, the polls are going against her but turnout will be key - apologies, that a pretty obvious comment to make, but ultimately, that's what will win or lose this...

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

We've just been hit with a 35% average hike in health care insurance premiums last week and this week, and I don't think the polls currently represent the anger people are feeling over it. But I do often hear the term bandied about... 'Damn ObamaCare.'

32.5% for individual plans and 7.1% for small group plans actually, but 75% of PA Obamacare purchasers are subsidised, so the notional 'average increase of 32.5%' doesn't actually apply. So that's 2.5% (10% of insured PA voters are part of the Obamacare system) of PA voters who are insured impacted by either the average 32.5% or 7.1% increase. I doubt this is provoking too much widespread anger.

Amerika

alastair wrote: »

32.5% for individual plans and 7.1% for small group plans actually, but 75% of PA Obamacare purchasers are subsidised, so the notional 'average increase of 32.5%' doesn't actually apply. So that's 2.5% (10% of insured PA voters are part of the Obamacare system) of PA voters who are insured impacted by either the average 32.5% or 7.1% increase. I doubt this is provoking too much widespread anger.

You're wrong about the anger. I'm in a small group plan and it went up over 30%. Reality sucks! So you say 75% of ObamaCare purchasers were subsidised. The ObamaCare plans here are cost prohibited even with being subsidised. The extremely high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs are causing people not to go doctors unless something it is a minor doctors visit or something extremely costly. Here's what people remember... ObamaCare was guaranteed to drive down insurance costs and not cost the taxpayer one thin dime. Both lies. And Hillary wants to continue this boondoggle of a mess?

mrkiscool2

Brian? wrote: »

Losing Florida isn't a problem for Clinton as long as she takes PA.

Polls have only been moving one way in Florida and the fact the FBI are now looking for an indictment will move it even further towards Trump. As someone who is going out with a Floridan (don't know if that is the right term or not ) I know they hate been lied to and there is anger about the emails.

Brian?

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Polls have only been moving one way in Florida and the fact the FBI are now looking for an indictment will move it even further towards Trump. As someone who is going out with a Floridan (don't know if that is the right term or not ) I know they hate been lied to and there is anger about the emails.

The FBI are looking to indict Hillary? I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The FBI are looking to indict Hillary? I'm pretty sure you just made that up.

Not making it up. I guess at this point it boils down to the credibility of the sources in the link. But observing Bret Baier and his level of integrity over many years, I have come to believe he wouldn’t have put it out there unless he found the source to be incredibly credible.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html