FBI REOPENS Investigation into Hillary Clinton Emails

[Final-Fan]

Thuglas said:

So do you classify all of those examples as "fact checking with the Clinton campaign"? How about the New York times journalist I linked that allowed Clinton campaign to edit out one of his opinions? He mentioned Sarah Palin in the article and the Clinton campaign told him to remove it. I can only assume they do not want Clinton to be associated with SP in any way but that is beyond trying to be "objective". That is a clear example to want to portrey Clinton a certain way and had nothing to do with fact checking. You take this as good journalism? Do you think NYT, CNN and Politico contacts Trump campaign when writing stories about Donald Trump and allow edits or fact cheaking? You think they are fair enough to let Trump project his own ideas in secret then they sign off on it as if it is their own?

You claim there must be others leaking questions to Trump too. okay provide proof. anything. When you are faced with undeniable proof of cheating, you immediately assume Republicans must be doing it too because of what? That is a clear bias that leads you to assume that the democratic party can not possible be worse than the Republican party in anyway no matter if there is clear cut proof. This is something I see all the time with Hillary supporters. Sorry to bring in the whole "Hillary supporters always do this" type argument but I truely believe what you did is equal to the all to common argument of "it is just dirty politics, all politicians do it". No, not at all. There is evidence of Clinton campaign cheating, there isn't any (atleast none you have provided or that I have seen) of Trump cheating this election. What has been exposed of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign is FAR above the level of corruption exposed for any other presidential politician in a long time. this is not the norm, get that idea out of your head.

About the article you linked - A journalist using a fallacy to elevate Trump is not proof of collusion. That is simply a Trump favoring journalist giving a fallacious argument. I am not saying any of the people I mentioned previously are colluding with Clinton because they use fallacious arguements, I am saying they are colluding because we have proof that they communicate with the Clinton campaign in secrecy to either cheat or help push a narrative HRC wants. If I were to use weak arguments as proof of collusion, then I would use the fact that majority of all reporter respond to Wikileaks arguements with Russia scapegoating which is simply not a counter argument. I didn't use the fact that 96% of media campaign donations went to Clinton as proof of collusion. I didn't use the fact that Donald Trump sexual assault accusations got 23x more airtime than the Podesta Wikileaks emails even though the public care much more about that (Clinton polls dropped more due to wikileaks than Trump due to accusations) as collusion.

There is still much more wikileaks examples, like I said it is hard to keep track of them. List of 65 top Mainstream media journalist invited to 2 Private "off the record" dinners at Clinton campaign house about "framing the HRC message and framing the race" http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/wikileaks-list-least-65-msm-reporters-meeting-andor-coordinating-offline-top-hillary-advisors/  No Fox news journalist went. Large collections of journalist meeting to learn how they should "frame the HRC message" two days before she announced she was running seems a little sketchy. It almost certainly show they are being told a collective message of what they need to do in favor of Clinton and what narrative the MSM needs to push

side note: You do not trust anybody reporting on the Wikileaks emails? I was simply giving a suggestion since 10,000s of emails are hard to read through by yourself. If you aren't willing to trust anybody critical of HRC (yes most who knows the full contents of these leaks WILL MOST LIKELY no longer support Clinton) then you likely will never know the full extent of HRC coruption.

Briefly: 

No, I do not think they were ALL just fact checking.  You didn't read my post very carefully, did you?  I numbered my points according to the three instances you cited.  One of them I called "definitely collusion".  (Paraphrasing, not direct quote)

For another thing, the person you claim colluded with Clinton in the first instance is the SAME PERSON you also just now claimed was "a Trump favoring journalist".  Can you explain why these two things would simultaneously be true? 

Read my post for real, get back to me, then I'll respond in more detail.