Random Politics & Religion #13

It's not that I'm even opposed to this... But how will this eliminate all government corruption?

I'm not even sure it would eliminate any corruption.

Was it under the section titled "Collusion with the State Department"? Because that was the one part I really just skimmed.

Problem is we don't know redacteds position. So I will agree that either of us can be right in this situation and it just depends on if redacted could normally declassify certain emails or even deny the original request based on the fact it was quid pro quo. If he was a crony, you would be correct but if he was in any position of my power my anecdote would be correct.





I think it is extremely ambitious and definitely won't end all government corruption. The idea is also nice but passing a bill of this magnitude would require a miracle as both political parties would most likely be against this. It will potentially end some corruption though, which is better than none.

We also have to consider how presidential candidates often say things and then don't follow through.





That is the speculation and the basis is the information given. Point I'm trying to make is that you can't compare his speculation to that of LG's flouride argument as KN does have a base of verified information to speculate from.





As I mentioned above, we can assume there may not have been collusion. I think it matters on [redacteds] position in the matter. If he had the ability to deny the request immediately based on the quid pro quo then I would consider it collusion, otherwise I agree it was just an attempt at collusion.

That's all they have anymore. If they cannot argue, they just make baseless accusations.


At the very least it's a failed attempt at collusion. The act of collusion itself is illegal and would make anyone who even attempted it subject to federal prosecution. At the very least, the Undersecretary of the State Department (a member of the Obama Administration) would be facing jail just by attempting such acts.

Well its about time you figured it out. It has nothing to do with the FBI, the Obama administration, or the Clinton campaign. There was no collusion.

So, attempted collusion is nobody's fault. Unless... yes, I get it now! It's Bush's fault!

I feel like you completely ignored his statement.

I didn't say it was nobody's fault. Clearly, it was the one individual who attempted it that should be blamed. He attempted it, he failed. He will probably resign. Thats it. Done.

Do you really believe that these types of things are done in a vacuum?

Man, it must be nice to have a band of followers that are perfectly okay with you sacrificing the scapegoats that were just following orders "for the greater good".

Well, we have all been asking for some evidence to back up the conspiracy theory that Obama himself ordered this to be done. Or Clinton ordered it. Or something. Anything really. All you guys have done so far is prove the FBI did its job.

I think if anything, we are saying that it should be investigated. There is a chance it could be collusion between the state department and some other entity that we do not know of. Our speculation could also be wrong, which is ok.

What I'm trying to say is that claiming there currently isn't hard evidence is not reason enough to not speculate or investigate.


My personal basis for speculation is that there doesn't seem to be any benefit for anyone other than Clinton if the classification was changed for said email. Is it enough for a conviction? Nope. Is there enough information to speculate and start an investigation? I think so.

Meanwhile Kerry apparently demanded Ecuador government to do something about Assange when he was there for the Colombia thing to prevent him from releasing further emails of Clinton(they cut his internet access).

So the smoking gun here for inter-department collusion is an instance where the FBI resisted a potential compromise to its investigation? I checked the calendar for Opposite Day just in case so I guess this one will need some explaining.

Further more from the state department:

Man, you guys must really think there are a whole list (or binders) of people out there willing to do illegal acts for Hillary Clinton.

Why would the Undersecretary commit possible collusion to reclassify emails (even a single email) for a person who is no longer in power?

Why would Clinton's aides destroy evidence, or have the FBI destroy it for them?

Why would Comey even recommend no prosecution, when all the evidence states otherwise?

And you guys seriously think that all these things are individual events not for the benefit of Clinton?

On one side Wikileaks is so openly biased that it's hard sometimes to not doubt their trustworthiness...

On the other hand, it's really hard to take seriously someone called Kirby.

I agree that they are bias, but they almost always release factual information. I think there is little reason to completely deny their claims. It is obviously in the interest of the state department to deny these claims.

Better yet, if anyone wants to fall on the sword for Clinton, go ahead and do it now.

Any takers here? Come on now, all it's going to take is a conviction, a federal record, and 2 years being Mike's new butt buddy. And I'm sure Clinton will remember your sacrifice for her "noble" cause when she throws you under the bus and puts another 5 years onto your sentence.

Actually, more than once I've seen their leaks accompanied by conjecture. I don't know if to attract more people or to sway opinions, but there's that.

Fair enough, they also didn't give a source for the accusation.

Really? "Almost always factual information?" They are a criminal organization that has plenty of time to alter or fabricate the files they have obtained. They aren't a news outlet.

Already planning your next excuse Vic?

You're so cute.

Just because you don't want to believe the information they release doesn't make them less factual. Wikileaks actually has a good reputation for providing raw data.

As Seha mentioned, they may inject their opinion in conjuncture with the information they provide but their opinion doesn't invalidate their information.

You can't believe everything that CNN says about Wikileaks.

The falsehoods in this section know no bounds!

What does CNN say about Wikileaks? I just know that the Russians and Wikileaks are working together to try to influence the election, and given how Putin knows if Clinton takes office his dreams of further expansion are dead, its easy to question the validity of the Podesta files, which thus far, have been harmless. They don't have much longer to step it up.

That is what CNN says.

Why are we also blaming Russia for everything, its like the cold war all over again.

And you accuse others of conspiracy?

You tell the tallest one yet!

Please, Putin knows that Clinton is like Obama; weak and worthless.

Remember boys and girls, when Bush left office, Crimea was still a sovereign state, and Syria wasn't in civil war. Obama could have done more to prevent such things, but he ran out of red paint to draw in the sand.

Clinton wouldn't do a damn thing against Putin, and will just be as weak as Obama in foreign affairs.