Derek 2.0

No, as there are currently laws pertaining to campaign financing......they didn't just appear out of the ether...... No, you can "take it" that I didn't offer my opinion on abortion.

And Wikileaks just announced they are beginning "Phase III" of their disclosures........its going to be an interesting week.

BINGO

I have, and understand both rulings by the Supreme Court.........X amount of dollars contributed is a moot point that runs counter to the protection of the right to the Freedom of Speech.... Nope, but his policies did in 1980.

Reread my response to Argus....

No they didn't...........and legislators write laws, but there is very little support, on either side, for such restrictions. Yes they can, and I cited the Amendment that allows them to do exactly that...... I don't see it as anymore an issue, grounded in reality, with Trump, then it was with Barry Goldwater.......its politics........there are many things to be weary of with a Trump presidency, but his finger being on the button (or Clintons) is not something that keeps me up at night.....

Their decision had nothing to do with upholding campaign finance, but the protection of Freedom of speech..........none the less, if you want campaign finance reform, support those that want it in Congress and the Senate....in other words legislators. To do the exact opposite of what you suggest.........to prevent an activist Supreme Court that attempts to go outside its mandate.......if you want "new laws", elect new lawmakers.....ironically, Hillary is currently a far larger benefactor of corporate donations than Trump. Who is investigating Trump as opposed to independent groups that he is affiliated with? Name them...........Clinton is personally being investigated by the FBI. Yes they do (with a majority of the cabinet), through the 25th Amendment, which includes provisions for mental health or being generally "unfit".....it was rumored that Reagan nearly go displaced twice, once after being shot, and the second time during the twilight of his tenure when he started going soft in the brainbox...... And no, they wouldn't be "relieved on the spot" under the pretext of a mentally unstable President Trump.......all officers from enlistment to the Joint Chiefs take an Oath to uphold the United States Constitution, not the presidency, from all enemies foreign and domestic.........clearly a "President Trump" intent on nuking a country that slighted him over twitter would constitute a domestic threat............The "just following orders defense" has proven folly since Nuremberg.

Where did I state I oppose (or support) abortion? Likewise, how are Supreme Court judges going to put limits on campaign financing..........you understand they're not legislators right? Watch, a sneeze will blow over those strawmen...... Investigated by who? Clinton is being investigated by the FBI........Trump is what? Undergoing an audit by the IRS Perhaps you shouldn't "save on research".......forgetting Cabinet and various other elected officials, the flag officer at USSTRATCOM (and his duty officers) all the way down the line could refuse such an order......and of course, that's forgetting invocation of the 25th Amendment.

I'm not a Trump "supporter", my opinion of him is widespread throughout the countless GOP primary threads, as I've said though, if forced to choose between Trump or Clinton, I'd vote Trump, namely because the next president (assuming two terms) is going to likely select upwards of 3-5 Supreme Court justices.......Trump has listed his 20 prospective picks, from a list that the majority of the GOP is supportive of and Trump has said he won't deviate from. The fact that Trump isn't being investigated by the FBI is but the cherry on top..........despite the media narrative (and his own words and actions) Trump isn't the scary choice, fore assuming the GOP keeps the Congress (likely) and the Senate (too close to call), or if the Democrats take the Senate, any "scary Trump proposals" would be nixed by the prescribed checks and balances, the separation of powers, ingrained in the US Constitution.

Pot, this is kettle, over.....

Hell, maybe even "Lying Ted".......

You're right, Clinton's appears far worse. Huh? These were all heavily publicized cases at the time.......no conspiracies needed......all examples of civilians, below the level of Secretary of State (fourth inline to be president) facing legal problems for the "mishandling" of classified government documents. Fraud and/or obstruction.

What's with the "you guys"......not my circus, not my monkeys. I don't disagree.......A Rubio, a Bush, a Kasich, at this point, would have been a slam dunk. According to some recent polls, polls held before the FBI bombshell, "we" might not have to wait four years.........

But that is out of context.......in this case the "homeowner" might have been negligent of starting a fire, or even just "mishandling her stove", but the far more concerning part is that she and her staff weren't/aren't forthcoming with all the details to the fire inspector and insurance adjuster......

There isn't, as Secretary of State, Clinton (and those under her with security clearances) are expected of the same standard as the military etc.......The State Department even has its own mini CIA/FBI found within the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, which is tasked, within many areas, counterintelligence and internal security of the State Department.....which includes training programs, for staff holding security clearances, with regards to the protection of State secrets.

.......just following orders In keeping with the (Bill) Clinton theme......Sandy Berger, President Clinton's former NSA (two years with an ankle bracelet and a big fine)......John Deutch, Clinton's director of the CIA (Pardoned by Bubba Clinton just prior to being sent to the can).....And (Bill) Clinton State Department staffer Donald Keyser, who brought home classified documents on memory cards to his home, which were later lifted by a Chinese spy (He did one year in prison)......thats off the top of my head

The Clinton campaign sure seems to care.......if it didn't mater, they would have "changed the page" with her initial public statement last night.......their continued response keeps it alive, much like Trump when he spent weeks going after the Miss Universe or all the women he "raped", hence I would assume team Clinton considers it worth "addressing", and not because people don't care......... ........Granted Team Clinton backers will still support her, like Trump supporters continued support of him, where this will damage her is among independents and Bernie Sanders supporters that might not break Trump but stay home.

I'm not, this could very well be far worse.........Nixon's own actions did himself in, there is no reason Clinton shouldn't account for her own, likewise any other actors that are proven to have broken the law.

No, I'm not "sucked" into anything, other then factual evidence presented to date........if you know the FBI keeps things under wraps, why did you accuse them of being vague?

Nixon got kicked out of office for deleting a couple of minutes of taped conversations during the Watergate circus........Hillary is accused of far worse.

Irresponsible? You mean the FBI is irresponsible for doing its job? They are not being "vague", publishing details now would taint any criminal proceedings brought against Clinton......... What is "irresponsible" is the DoJ trying to quell the FBI doing its legal duty of notifying the elected officials in Washington........furthermore, what is irresponsible is the lead agent's wife, the agent that investigated Clinton, receiving money from a Clinton donor.........Likewise, what is irresponsible, is former President Clinton meeting with the Attorney General behind closed doors during the investigation of Hillary Clinton........

Her deleted and hidden emails.....all it requires is a GOP majority in Congress to impeach her, then a GOP majority (or a majority including Democrats) in the Senate to boot her out of office...........with that, if she is indicted by the FBI in the coming weeks, and assuming she "won" the election, I highly doubt the Electoral Collage, via the States, would give her the required votes to become president, which then would result in the president being selected (through the electoral collage) by an up or down vote by the Congress and Senate....which are both currently controlled by the GOP.

I wouldn't be so sure........I was burnt (along with many, many other people far more in the know then I) assuming Trump was finished many times during the primary.....per Wikileaks, team Clinton and the DNC have been proven to be in collusion with media outlets and now with pollsters........as more evidence piles up, Trump/The right suggestions of media and polling bias might very well be true. On paper, I would tend to agree that this latest Clinton scandal and reopening of the FBI case is too little, too late............but I wouldn't bet on it......with that said, it could very well result in Clinton squeaking by into the White House, with the GOP keeping the Congress and Senate......ending in a tainted Clinton presidency before she even steps into the Oval office......and perhaps an impeachment process starting the day she is sworn in.

Glen Beck backed the wrong horse (Cruz) to such a degree that he's sunk his own "media empire"........his attacks on FNC and other Conservative media is an attempt to regain market share.

Ahhh no, the previous deputy director of the FBI, being interviewed on FNC (IIRC on either O'Reilly or Megyn Kelly) last night.....