FBI REOPENS Investigation into Hillary Clinton Emails

[Final-Fan]

Thuglas said:

- I lumped all of the one you didn't call "definite collusion" together and addressed that one seperately. You claimed the CNN leaking debate question was collusion but refused to believe it proved anything because "Republicans do it to" without having any proof of that. I know you didn't call the CNN one a matter of "simple fact checking" which is why I addressed it seperately. I used poor wording by saying "all of those examples" but you should know that I obviously didn't mean the CNN example since I addressed it seperately with an entire paragraph dedicated to it.

- My mistake, Yes I didn't read that part fully because from a glance it looked like you were using a journalist using a fallacy as proof of someone colluding. Okay but one instance of her defending Trump does not negate the fact that she gets into contact with Clinton campaign to "tee up" stories for them. Like I said, I didn't base collusion off individual arguments presented by these journalist so one arguement in favor of Trump doesn't necessarily mean everything (although it does make me question my stance as I see your point). To me, what motivated my arguement is the secrecy  of the journalist forming their opinion behind closed doors with DIRECT influence from the people they are supposed to be unbiased towards. But I see your point, this is definately the weakest example out of the ones I provided

okay please address the points you skipped

1. Clinton campaign editing out journalist mention of Sarah Palin in a HRC article.

2. Do you think Trump gets this same "fact checking" priviledge from these people? If not, would they no longer be good journalist for NOT fact checking?

3. Can you provide any reason why you assume leaking debate questions happens on both sides? Are you implying Trump cheats here too?

4. 65 top journalist from every major news organization, except FOX, attended secret dinners at Clinton campaign exec's house. The 2 dinners were about "framing the HRC  message and the race" two days before HRC announced she was running for President.

5. So you are not going to learn about the wikileak emails because you do not trust anyone reporting on it? I simply provided 3 known sources to help summarize the tens of thousands of emails for you. ofcourse the people reporting on it fully do not like Hillary, if you know the contents of these emails then you will see why. With that logic you will NEVER find a source that satisfies you. You need to be willing to listen to the opposing side for a second. I have been reading about these emails for the past month and every single source that goes into detail on them have are understandably anti-Hillary.

I was initially Hillary leaning, then I read the email that showed Hillary in her own words claiming "suadi Arabia and Qatar are providing logistical and financial support to ISIL and other radical suni groups in the region", Then i saw a link to the Clinton foundation website showing  they took 25mil from Saudi Arabia. Add to that the email that showed Bill Clinton taking 1Mil from the Qatar government in secret and not reporting it. Now consider Hillary pushed for the multi Billion dollar arms deals with Suadi Arabia as Secretary of State. She pushed the sale of billions worth of weapons to governments SHE KNEW were funding ISIS. She took massive donations to the Clinton foundation (one donation was kept secret) from groups SHE KNEW funds ISIS. She also kept her knowledge of Saudi and  Qatar funding ISIS secret. Now I purposely didn't include any speculation over her motives as I want to point out as strongly as possible that nothing here is "theory" only very strong evidence. You can form your own theories but to me, I can't possibly see how anybody can anybody come to any other conclusion than something really morally reprehensable. I know this isn't about media bias, but I wanted to show you exactly why people who report on this in detail have "rage-boners" like H.A Goodman and Stefan Molyneux (he gets pretty angry talking about this stuff too). It is completely justified and this isn't even getting into detail of SOOOO many other horrible things like what the Clinton Foundation did to Haiti. Anti-Hillary people do get angry at the very thought of her getting away with such disturbing acts. I dont know why you think they get angry but I assure you it is not because they are not "just so pro trump" or sexist or conservative or anything like that.

1.  From the earlier text of the email it appears that the things in question were said "off the record" and the reporter was asking for permission to put it "on the record".  Obviously if reporters took the position that "absolutely anything I hear come out of your mouth, I consider myself free to print", politicians would speak a lot less freely.  So they let them speak "off the record" and most of it is still stuff they are willing to let print.  And obviously if it is some kind of gigantic bombshell that the public absolutely needs to know I'd expect a good journalist to break this convention, but realize that it would probably end their days of talking with politicians. 

On the other hand, I do question why anyone would agree to do what sounds like an entire interview off the record.  If they sit down for an interview I think the expectation that a reporter is free to print it is reasonable. 

But, you know, it wasn't like there was too much here.  She didn't verbally assault Palin here, but she made a joke at her expense, and I think it's one that you might reasonably want to do in private but not in public.  Doing it in public could be seen as an attack by some people instead of poking fun, and Clinton is a little paranoid. 

2.  Yes, I would expect that Trump gets sent a lot of material with offers or requests for him to comment on it.  If they do it with Clinton but not Trump, that is suspicious. 

3.  Well, I admit I am going on the idea that Republicans leak things like crazy sometimes and that certain news organizations are very pro-Republican.  However, I will admit that none of the coverage I've seen has mentioned a comparable incident by Republican leaning news workers.  Maybe it's a one way street.  And this particular person was already on the way out for another case of peddling backdoor information to a Democratic campaign when this leaked (forget if it was Clinton).  (If I remember the story right she was on leave to be with the campaign and CNN wasn't taking her back.)  So I suppose it's possible this is a unique case. 

P.S.  In the other case, she didn't get the info from her CNN colleagues but got it from the TV station.  Perhaps something similar happened here (was the question read from teleprompter?) 

4.  How secret were they? 

5.  I presume that there is someone looking through the emails that is not as crazy as the ones you mentioned.  But I am extremely busy right now.  I will find a reputable source in due time.  "Anti-Hillary" is fine as long as they don't let it affect their judgment as is CLEARLY the case for Goodman.  You said Fox has someone investigating them?  I'll check that out.