My sources are considerably pro Hillary, if I wanted to list the other sources about the election fraud that occured I would, not to mention the fact that super delegates long since destroyed any notion that the Democrats cared about who they nominated. Wasserman Schultz is the head of the DNC, if Reince Priebus did anything like this, he wouldn't have a job in politics and rightly so, why on earth would Clinton put her on her campaign staff?
The notion that there will be a smoking gun is also ridiculous. They never found the murder weapon that killed Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman, so how on earth could we know they were stabbed? The fact that Hillary has been shrouded in controversy and has escaped criminal charges despite committing a crime should say all that needs to be said about her believably at this point.
Libya is just one of many poor choices Hillary has on foreign policy issues. And for starting WW3, I would expect that to come from China and North Korea initiating something. Perhaps dealing with the South China Sea might be a problem
http://www.businessinsider.de/us-step-up-china-south-china-sea-2016-9?r=US&IR=T
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/07/25/Why-Clinton-s-China-Policy-Puts-More-Risk-Trump-s
Kind of weird seeing as they took bribes from China before
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...faces-Congress-quiz-arrested-FBI-bribery.html
The middle east is terrible now after her tenure
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...department-during-middle-east-chaos/87582276/
And she even has an Iran-Contra scandal of her own
http://theduran.com/julian-assange-...ns-collection-proves-sold-weapons-isis-syria/
So no, claiming to be against the Iraq war after voting for it doesn't fly
Unfortunately, we have to use evidence that can be used in a court of law against Hillary, not conjecture. And later on, O.J. Simpson was found liable in a civil trial. Which is different from accusing Hillary of rigging the primaries. Proof was found to make Simpson liable. What about Hillary?
And we knew that Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were stabbed, just not by Simpson until after the trial when new evidence was found. That is of course another story, and does make the Double Jeopardy regulation controversial.
But that really isn't related to the primary fraud.
And the while idea that Clinton's confrontational policy with China leading to a nuclear war can't be ruled out (it never can when you're dealing with an aggressive nuclear power), it's far less likely than what might happen with a Trump administration. Anyone who questions why we don't use nukes if we have them does not deserve to have control over them. If he launches a pre-emtive strike on North Korea or Iran, they might be wiped out, but they might also be able to retaliate. And God help us if China or Russia steps in, respectively. Or Russia's detection system, which only functions due to duct tape and a prayer, might mistake an attack on Iran or North Korea as a launch headed towards them, and they might make a snap decision (since nobody trusts The Donald), and attack us, we'll of course retaliate, and it will be the end of civilization.
And it is possible that she lied abut being against the Iraq War after evidence came up that the Bush Administration had faked the evidence of WMD's, but short of drugging her with truth serum and finding out, it's conjecture.
And while Bill might've taken money from China indirectly, there doesn't seem to be anything linking her to that. Like I've explained to my father, for better or worse, Hillary is not Bill.
And if any administration is responsible for the creation of ISIS, it is the Bush administration. The campaign into Iraq and removal of Hussein might have removed a tyrant, but he did keep the region stable, and by removing him from power, it created a power vacuum for ISIS to later rise up from the remnants of Al Qaeda.
To Hillary's credit, leaving troops in the region might have stemmed or prevented the rise of ISIS. The Obama administration might have it's issues, but ISIS is not completely it's fault, it inherited the beginning of it. At worst, the Obama Administration made a mistake by not keeping troops in the region when Al Qaeda began a rebound, and not supporting the Syrian rebels while there were still groups that might adopt some of our beliefs and values if they could overthrow Assad. I would not have backed down from my threat when Assad used chemical weapons on civilians.
Libya was a mess. When Gadaffi began using force against his citizens who no longer wanted him in power, it probably seemed ethically right at the time to intervene and help, since they were trying to do something not unlike what we did to form our country. Too bad the transitional government rejected the offer for helping to peacefully transition as planned by Obama and Clinton. This is of course the conclusion I've formed based on what I know.
Now, if these e-mails implicating Hillary Clinton in shipping weapons to would-be terrorists in a CIA plot to overthrow Assad are real (and in spite of my issues with Wiki-Leaks and Assange, I also trust this is not a bluff), then this is as serious a scandal as Trump University, Scotland, and Trump Foundation combined (though I don't want to decide if this is more disturbing than Trump's ignorance regarding the concept of MAD). If anyone were to say that this is a form of treason, I couldn't disagree.
One could even speculate this was part of a plot to create/revive a viable threat in order ensure that the dialogue for ending security measures like the NSA's mass surveillance program would be avoided by the mainstream media for this election year, so the intelligence community could continue to spy on us unchallenged. Unfortunately, it is only speculation, and I can't prove that.
Let us lament once again that there is no indication that any of the candidates other than Trump or Clinton will be President though.
