[Pick6]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour ago

It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged!

[Demarcus ware]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour ago

It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged!

Would anyone really be shocked?

[Pick6]

Watch the IT guy that set up the email server get prosecuted now! You know, the guy who invoked the 5 th amendment 60 times during his FBI interview!

[Fear the Nation]

She has not been exonerated.

[Hoot Gibson]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 1h1 hour ago

It was just announced-by sources-that no charges will be brought against Crooked Hillary Clinton. Like I said, the system is totally rigged!

Donald Trump is a pathological liar. This sounds like another cheap Trump play for free publicity. Sources? What sources? That is the beauty of the 140 character limit of Twitter. However, if Trump's tweet was based on a reliable source, then he could have followed up with a link to the source.

Now, Fox News Channel will contact The Donald and ask him to clarify. Trump will respond with another free ad hoc political campaign ad, paid for by FNC, Trump's favorite Super PAC. nicker:

Hillary may escape prosecution for her crimes, but nobody can exonerate her for committing them but a jury of her peers.

[Demarcus ware]

Donald Trump is a pathological liar. This sounds like another cheap Trump play for free publicity. Sources? What sources? That is the beauty of the 140 character limit of Twitter. However, if Trump's tweet was based on a reliable source, then he could have followed up with a link to the source.

Now, Fox News Channel will contact The Donald and ask him to clarify. Trump will respond with another free ad hoc political campaign ad, paid for by FNC, Trump's favorite Super PAC. nicker:

Hillary may escape prosecution for her crimes, but nobody can exonerate her for committing them but a jury of her peers.

Seeing as how it's been on just about every news source since yesterday I'd say it's not just free publicity. But I wouldn't expect a Hillary supporter to understand that.

[RunItUpTheGut]

A thread about Hillary potentially getting away with a felony and her supporter comes out to bash Trump in it nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

Seeing as how it's been on just about every news source since yesterday I'd say it's not just free publicity. But I wouldn't expect a Hillary supporter to understand that.

Who is the source? Or is what is being reported simply that Trump tweeted that there is a source? Could the source be Trump's campaign? Maybe Chelsea told her good friend Ivanka that her mommy had been cleared.

Please stop referring to me being a Hillary supporter. A quick search of the forum will reveal that to be untrue. I do not believe that there has been a more prolific critic of Hillary Clinton - and the Clintons as a rotten to the core family - than I have.

It is possible for one to despise both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Their families are good friends for a reason. They are peas in a pod. Two sides of the same coin. Dumb and dumber. Corrupt politician and her most reliable supporter (aside from the last year).

If Hillary Clinton becomes president, it will be because of incompetent GOP leadership, the people who supported Trump's candidacy over more honest and better qualified bona fide conservative Republicans. The GOP rules should have included some minimum proof that candidates were Republicans, such as having voted in previous Republican primaries and support of more Republican politicians than Democrats in the past.

If you and your fellow Trumpsters believe that an authoritarian dumbass like Donald Trump is what is needed to set this country back on its rightful course, you certainly have the right to do so, but is it really necessary to trash the conservatives who disagree and see Trump and Hillary as threats to our way of life by calling us Clinton supporters? Be honest...please.

This may shock some of you who live in areas that overwhelmingly support Trump, but the most recent Fox News poll showed that 51 percent of Republicans wish somebody else was the presumptive nominee.

That is not a good sign, weeks after sewing up the delegates needed for the nomination. In fact, it has never happened in the past and it is nobody's fault but Trump's. Trump is running a horrible campaign against a horrible candidate.

[Pick6]

Videos
CNN Report: Clinton Will Not Be Indicted
CNN: Sources tell CNN Clinton will likely not face charges in the investigation into her private email server. But the story itself, looms over her campaign. More >>

Andrea Mitchell: Even If Hillary Is Exonerated, There Will Always Be Suspicions Decision Was Politically Influenced
Dem Rep. Schiff: A Private Server Was Certainly a Mistake And Added Security Vulnerability
CNN's Keilar Grills Cory Booker: If Hillary Clinton Is Indicted Should She Step Aside As Nominee?
Judge Jeanine Pirro: "The Clintons Repeatedly Violate Our Standard Of Truthfulness And Honesty"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/

[Hoot Gibson]

Videos
CNN Report: Clinton Will Not Be Indicted
CNN: Sources tell CNN Clinton will likely not face charges in the investigation into her private email server. But the story itself, looms over her campaign. More >>

Andrea Mitchell: Even If Hillary Is Exonerated, There Will Always Be Suspicions Decision Was Politically Influenced
Dem Rep. Schiff: A Private Server Was Certainly a Mistake And Added Security Vulnerability
CNN's Keilar Grills Cory Booker: If Hillary Clinton Is Indicted Should She Step Aside As Nominee?
Judge Jeanine Pirro: "The Clintons Repeatedly Violate Our Standard Of Truthfulness And Honesty"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/

The Real Clear Politics text does not match the CNN video. Maybe I missed it, but the only mention of sources in the video was the coverage of Trump's tweet. I am not saying that nobody leaked "information" to Trump. What I am saying is that Trump is not a reliable source of news. This is a man whose campaign planted the rumor about not one, but five Ted Cruz affairs in the National Enquirer and then complained that the story was not getting more coverage by the mainstream media.

[Demarcus ware]

The Real Clear Politics text does not match the CNN video. Maybe I missed it, but the only mention of sources in the video was the coverage of Trump's tweet. I am not saying that nobody leaked "information" to Trump. What I am saying is that Trump is not a reliable source of news. This is a man whose campaign planted the rumor about not one, but five Ted Cruz affairs in the National Enquirer and then complained that the story was not getting more coverage by the mainstream media.

Actually it was allies of Rubio that leaked those stories about Cruz not Trump. See, This is something a Hillary supporter would say and that's why I will refer to you in that way from now on.

[TheRealThing]

The Real Clear Politics text does not match the CNN video. Maybe I missed it, but the only mention of sources in the video was the coverage of Trump's tweet. I am not saying that nobody leaked "information" to Trump. What I am saying is that Trump is not a reliable source of news. This is a man whose campaign planted the rumor about not one, but five Ted Cruz affairs in the National Enquirer and then complained that the story was not getting more coverage by the mainstream media.

You can't prove a single word of this. But such tripe has become your calling card.

[64SUR]

Somebody needs to tell trump about BGR. nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

Actually it was allies of Rubio that leaked those stories about Cruz not Trump. See, This is something a Hillary supporter would say and that's why I will refer to you in that way from now on.

Actually, it wasn't. That is the kind of thing that a Trump supporter would say. The only source cited in the National Enquirer smear was a close Trump ally and the tabloid's owner is a close personal friend of Donald Trump. So, you are going to continue lying about me being a supporter of Hillary. That is also the kind of thing one expects from a Trump supporter. I see one of the twin sidekicks approves. nicker:

[Hoot Gibson]

You can't prove a single word of this. But such tripe has become your calling card.

Trump could not prove a single word of the smear but that never stopped him from promoting the claim. You are supporting a pathological liar for president. You are not operating from moral high ground.

[TheRealThing]

Trump could not prove a single word of the smear but that never stopped him from promoting the claim. You are supporting a pathological liar for president. You are not operating from moral high ground.

Oh okay. So the way it works is gossip mongers such as yourself define what is moral high ground. No thanks.

[Hoot Gibson]

Oh okay. So the way it works is gossip mongers such as yourself define what is moral high ground. No thanks.

Says the "man" who believes that a gossip monger is qualified to be president. Thanks, but I will look elsewhere for good advice.

[TheRealThing]

Says the "man" who believes that a gossip monger is qualified to be president. Thanks, but I will look elsewhere for good advice.

I realize you're at an extreme disadvantage when you're not quoting some brainless #NeverTrump, but you could at least try and come up with your own material when making your pathetic attempts to insult those who disagree with you. Which BTW, is everybody on this board.

[Pick6]

Trump in Cincinnati on 7/6 at Sharonville Convention Centre

Tickets Here:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule/re...nnati-oh1/

[Demarcus ware]

Actually, it wasn't. That is the kind of thing that a Trump supporter would say. The only source cited in the National Enquirer smear was a close Trump ally and the tabloid's owner is a close personal friend of Donald Trump. So, you are going to continue lying about me being a supporter of Hillary. That is also the kind of thing one expects from a Trump supporter. I see one of the twin sidekicks approves. nicker:

Then where is your source that proves Trumps campaign did this other than saying someone's friend? I can give you articles written that says it did come from Rubio supporters. Again, you are acting like a Clinton supporter, keep proving my point.

[Hoot Gibson]

Then where is your source that proves Trumps campaign did this other than saying someone's friend? I can give you articles written that says it did come from Rubio supporters. Again, you are acting like a Clinton supporter, keep proving my point.

I am aware that there are reports that the initial rumors of the Cruz affairs came from people in the Rubio campaign, but as I said, the only person quoted in the National Enquirer story was long time Trump associate, Roger Stone. Do you think it was simply a coincidence that Stone was the only named source for a story published by one of Trump's best friends and personally promoted by Trump himself?

What about Donald Trump's complaint that the media was not giving the rumor that Ted Cruz's father may have been an associate of Lee Harvey Oswald and involved in the JFK assassination sufficient attention?

As for proof, this is politics, not a courtroom. What I have proof of is that Donald Trump is a liar who has made some ridiculous and unsupportable claims about his political opponents. What I have proof us is that Trump is the type of person who is perfectly content to smear an opponent's family members to further his own career.

It is interesting that you keep calling me a Clinton supporter because I do not plan to vote for the lunatic that is running as a Republican, yet you demand proof of all allegations against Trump. Nobody has been more critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton on this forum and yet you call me a Hillary supporter. What does that say about your honesty?

[Hoot Gibson]

I realize you're at an extreme disadvantage when you're not quoting some brainless #NeverTrump, but you could at least try and come up with your own material when making your pathetic attempts to insult those who disagree with you. Which BTW, is everybody on this board.

You are obsessed with being part of the majority. You should know by now, that I am not somebody who you can intimidate into conforming with group think, nor am I somebody who responds favorably to your insults. I have not changed. You have. I am the same consistent conservative that I was when I joined BGR more than six years ago.

Let's clear the air on something here. Hoot has made a reputation for supporting his views with sources and lucid posts. Most of the visitors to this forum regularly indicate their appreciation for his efforts. I'm one of them. You on the other hand have done precious little to articulate your views on any particular position whatever. Just coming on here and slamming conservatives won't win you many interested followers. When you say you ride the fence, you're saying you don't really know what you think. Why don't you lead off and expound on the issues that you care most about?

You are the one who started this exchange of insults. Even when I stopped responding to your insults, you persisted in taking shots at me. When I agreed with you, you were nothing but supportive. Fair weather friends are no friends at all.

Two things are likely to happen with Trump. He will either lose to the weakest candidate who the Democrats have ever nominated and Democrats will be blamed for the next four years, or Trump will eek out a win over the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever nominated and Republicans will get blamed for the next four years.

In either case, I am very comfortable with just saying no to two horrible alternatives. So if am the only one of 10 regular posters on this forum or the only one of 10,000 BGR posters who holds that opinion, it will not matter to me. I don't measure my self worth on how many people agree with my opinions. So, feel free to continue to remind me how unpopular my opinion is. Your opinion of me bothers me almost as much as rain bothers a duck.

[TheRealThing]

You are obsessed with being part of the majority. You should know by now, that I am not somebody who you can intimidate into conforming with group think, nor am I somebody who responds favorably to your insults. I have not changed. You have. I am the same consistent conservative that I was when I joined BGR more than six years ago.



You are the one who started this exchange of insults. Even when I stopped responding to your insults, you persisted in taking shots at me. When I agreed with you, you were nothing but supportive. Fair weather friends are no friends at all.

Two things are likely to happen with Trump. He will either lose to the weakest candidate who the Democrats have ever nominated and Democrats will be blamed for the next four years, or Trump will eek out a win over the weakest candidate the Democrats have ever nominated and Republicans will get blamed for the next four years.

In either case, I am very comfortable with just saying no to two horrible alternatives. So if am the only one of 10 regular posters on this forum or the only one of 10,000 BGR posters who holds that opinion, it will not matter to me. I don't measure my self worth on how many people agree with my opinions. So, feel free to continue to remind me how unpopular my opinion is. Your opinion of me bothers me almost as much as rain bothers a duck.

No actually there was a time that I agreed with most of what you said. One notable disagreement was your contention that drugs should be legalized. But calling Trump a liar with every breath no more makes you an informed poster than your faked righteous indignation makes others believe that it was me that started all this.

And nobody is buying into the idea that you are an equal opportunity slammer either. You've made hundreds of derogatory posts about Trump, most of them based on gossip, while at the same time making only a handful against Hillary. It is more than reasonable to assume you're pulling for her.

[Granny Bear]

Hoot, is that YOUR sign??

[Hoot Gibson]

No actually there was a time that I agreed with most of what you said. One notable disagreement was your contention that drugs should be legalized. But calling Trump a liar with every breath no more makes you an informed poster than your faked righteous indignation makes others believe that it was me that started all this.

And nobody is buying into the idea that you are an equal opportunity slammer either. You've made hundreds of derogatory posts about Trump, most of them based on gossip, while at the same time making only a handful against Hillary. It is more than reasonable to assume you're pulling for her.

Is Donald Trump a member of Blue Grass Preps? No, he is not. Show me the rule that prohibits members from making derogatory comments about a political candidate in a political forum. You are not Donald Trump. Let me repeat that for emphasis. YOU ARE NOT DONALD TRUMP.

If I make what you consider an insult of Donald Trump, it does not give you or anybody else a waiver from the BGR rules to personally attack me. Nor does it grant you a license to falsely label me as a Hillary Clinton supporter. In fact, even if I were an actual Hillary Clinton supporter who had the intention to vote for her, your personal attacks would still be violations of the rules. We are both long time members, and you know that I am anything but a Hillary supporter. The fact that she may benefit in some small way from me actively opposing Don the Con's candidacy does not make me a supporter of Hillary, any more than it makes me a supporter of the Communist USA Party candidate.

If you and your cohorts do not believe that I am being active enough in my opposition of Hillary, then you should actively oppose her yourself. An easy way to do that would be to add to one of the scores of anti-Clinton threads that we have both either started or actively participated in over the years.

The truth is Hillary is so corrupt and her deeds have been so well publicized, she is largely inoculated against old charges of corruption. Just as you did in Trump's case, new Hillary supporters seem to have given her a pass for her past positions and actions prior to becoming a 2016 candidate. It is unfortunate that so many Americans have such short and selective memories but that is what enables so many people to fall for the same empty promises and support lousy candidates during every election cycle. It is that acceptance of bad candidates that led us to a campaign featuring Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The bar has been lowered out of existence in the case of presidential candidates.

Let me repeat one more thing. Donald Trump is a liar. I have demonstrated that fact repeatedly by quoting the man's many contradictory statements.

Trump's repeated pledge to self fund his campaign, followed by his decision to solicit large contributions from wealthy donors before he has even become the GOP's nominee is absolute proof that he is a liar and a man of low character. Trump never included a caveat that he intended not to accept special interest money only during the primary elections - he lied repeatedly and he benefited greatly from that lie. Support Trump if you must, but do not deny the obvious truth about the presumptive GOP nominee. He is a liar, he has always been a liar, and if elected, he will continue to lie on a grand scale. In this country, no law requires any of us to choose between the lesser of two large scale liars.

Even more recently, Trump has once again resumed lying about Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich. None of them have violated their pledges to support the GOP nominee because Trump is not the GOP nominee until the delegates declare him to be the nominee. Few non-Trump supporters will blame the candidates who have suspended their campaigns if they ultimately do not support Trump if he becomes the party's nominee because of the sleazy, dishonest campaign that he ran against them. However, until the GOP selects Trump as its nominee, he is lying every time that he accuses them of violating their pledge to support the nominee.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, is that YOUR sign??

Unfortunately not, Granny. I became an apartment dweller when I moved to the DC area. I am blessed with great neighbors, but this is solid blue political country. An anti-Hillary yard sign would undoubtedly result in a call to the front office, followed by a reminder of my lease terms.

We do have some magnetic mount pro-Republican stickers on one of our cars. It is just a matter of time before the car gets keyed. :biggrin:

I was living here in 2012 and I have also lived in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (Cleveland area) a few years earlier. As soon as I heard Karl Rove yammering on about how there were many unreported precincts in Fairfax and Cuyahoga Counties on election night, 2012, and that those returns might allow Romney to eek out a win, I realized what an incompetent political analyst he was. Fairfax County may never vote for another Republican candidate and Rove, who I assumed has lived in the Washington Metro area, should have known that is the case.

[Pick6]

Exonerated was too strong a word. She will not be charged.

Edward Mejia Davis @TeddyDavisCNN

Sources tell CNN's Evan Perez: expectation is that there will be announcement of no charges in Clinton email probe w/in next two weeks or so

[Hoot Gibson]

Exonerated was too strong a word. She will not be charged.

Edward Mejia Davis @TeddyDavisCNN

Sources tell CNN's Evan Perez: expectation is that there will be announcement of no charges in Clinton email probe w/in next two weeks or so

The most likely case is that Hillary will not be charged, but you would be wise to consider the likely source of this "expectation." Hillary's campaign is the most likely source, followed by the Obama Department of Justice - IMO. The purpose of the purported leaks would be to pressure the FBI to not recommend charges against Hillary to the Justice Department.

Instead of whining about the system being "rigged," based on rumors that might have emanated from Hillary's own campaign, he should have been constantly accusing Obama and Lynch running interference for Hillary to cover up her illegal acts. His whining is not applying any pressure on either the Obama administration or on Hillary Clinton.

Giving a nickname like "Crooked Hillary" to Clinton is weak. Trump should be rattling off her lies about her emails and illegal possession of classified material on an illegal server in her home. Trump should be constantly reminding voters that the laws Clinton broke do not require criminal intent - negligence will do. In fact, maybe nicknaming Hillary "Negligent Hillary" or "Incompetent Hillary" would have been a better moniker because everybody knows that she is crooked and it hammer home the fact that whether she is crooked or simply incompetent, she is not fit to be president.

Trump has been much more effective smearing his fellow Republicans than he has been at justly accusing Hillary of negligence, dishonesty, and deliberate disregard of federal laws that are intended to safeguard our national security. The fact that Trump has been so weak in his attacks on Hillary is only one of the reasons that I continue to distrust him.

[jetpilot]

The most likely case is that Hillary will not be charged, but you would be wise to consider the likely source of this "expectation." Hillary's campaign is the most likely source, followed by the Obama Department of Justice - IMO. The purpose of the purported leaks would be to pressure the FBI to not recommend charges against Hillary to the Justice Department.

Instead of whining about the system being "rigged," based on rumors that might have emanated from Hillary's own campaign, he should have been constantly accusing Obama and Lynch running interference for Hillary to cover up her illegal acts. His whining is not applying any pressure on either the Obama administration or on Hillary Clinton.

Giving a nickname like "Crooked Hillary" to Clinton is weak. Trump should be rattling off her lies about her emails and illegal possession of classified material on an illegal server in her home. Trump should be constantly reminding voters that the laws Clinton broke do not require criminal intent - negligence will do. In fact, maybe nicknaming Hillary "Negligent Hillary" or "Incompetent Hillary" would have been a better moniker because everybody knows that she is crooked and it hammer home the fact that whether she is crooked or simply incompetent, she is not fit to be president.

Trump has been much more effective smearing his fellow Republicans than he has been at justly accusing Hillary of negligence, dishonesty, and deliberate disregard of federal laws that are intended to safeguard our national security. The fact that Trump has been so weak in his attacks on Hillary is only one of the reasons that I continue to distrust him.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Hoot Gibson]

Pot, meet kettle.

Such brilliant analysis could have been rendered by Karl Rove himself.