LEAKED EMAIL: Clinton Campaign Illegally Coordinating With SuperPAC,

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/leaked-email-clinton-campaign-illegally-coordinating-15184435/

Have at it.

You didn't even read the documents. Go troll somewhere else.

I called you out in one thread and destroyed you. You just now skimmed the article and are just posting gibberish bs. I don't know how you aren't banned yet.

Ugh...

Really?

Attacking the source is a pretty damn lousy argument. Even garbage sources like Breitbart shouldnt immediately be dismissed, because its breitbart. That is called basic intellectual honesty.

@joebones5000 said:

@n64dd said:

@joebones5000 said:

Uhhhhhhh. It's all right there, an email with which dopey Hannity is making a lot of assumptions, the first being that the email is even authentic in the first place, then there's the rest.

IN any event, it's just another red herring in an attempt to distract from Trumps predilection to assaulting unsuspecting women by grabbing them at the pussy and forcing them to kiss him on the mouth. Not going to work. No one gives a shit about emails from Wikileaks.

I called you out in one thread and destroyed you. You just now skimmed the article and are just posting gibberish bs. I don't know how you aren't banned yet.

You destroyed me? I remember you getting all butthurt when you and every other conservative was pooping and peeing his pants over ICANN. LOL. Yeah, you tried trolling me, denied that I worked for NetSol 15 years ago, claiming I didn't understand the situation. Yeah, you sure "destroyed" me...

You didn't even know the software that was used to perform your job.

He's a troll. You're basically talking to a wall.

He's a die hard democratic partisan.

Must be a CTR troll.

He made his account just to troll politics in OT. It's so obvious it's ridiculous.

The thing is that this happens all the time, and there's basically no enforcement of the "no super-pac coordination" rule. I'm finding it difficult to get worked up about it with that context in mind.

Does it bother you that she's breaking a law and participating in rigging an election?

Yeah, there have been several cases of this in this election cycle alone. It's a sham, really.

Which candidates besides Hillary have done it?

Is that what you guys have settled on then? Trump won't win and Hillary isn't going to jail? So you figure he will lose and when he does you'll use the rigged election thing? I just want to stay up on the latest Trump follower angles and strategies. Are you going to watch his new TV channel after he loses?

I don't know if she has done anything thus far that could be considered "election rigging". Yes there was illegal discussion with Wasserman Shultz about how to defeat Bernie, but no real actions were shown to be taken. Going after a book's legitimacy can hardly be considered election rigging either when it comes down to it.

As far as breaking a law that is itself basically an unenforced sham of a law (thank @mattbbpl for the excellent description).....eh? When literally everyone is doing something it's much more difficult to care. Should the law be enforced? Absolutely, but then again we should also be trying to get money out of politics in the first place so it's a bit more abhorrent that these types of super-pacs exist at all along with their near necessity to win an election.

I agree. I don't believe there should be super PACS. Do you have any information on other candidates that did the same what hillary is accused of doing?

If Hillary wins, i'll accept it and hope she does a good job.

I'm just hoping she will do a passable job. I doubt she will do much for the poor and middle class but who knows? Hopefully she won't get us into more wars but she probably will. I would be setting myself up for disappointment I think if I expected more. As gloomy as that sounds it's a hell of a lot more credit than I would give Trump.

These sound fake too. Wikileaks twitted Megan Kelly and told her they were all fake and not to trust leaks not from them.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/784604124738416640

i think you just pulled that out of your ass

@n64dd: I posted link, but I'm on phone so it's hard for me to mess around. You actually think Wikileaks would have missed leaking something like that o. 10th anniversary? That would have been BIG money.

Try harder

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

This story was my favorite, and illustrates quite well why the entire firewall between PACs and campaigns is a sham.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/17/politics/twitter-republicans-outside-groups/

@FireEmblem_Man: Yeah, I'm not reading through 2k emails just to see if it's there. I need a direct link to verify.

I've read some and although they offer transparency, i haven't seen nothing bad yet.

Go to their actual twitter. They're leaking shit. Troll harder bro.

Edit: Thanks fire_emblem

@n64dd: Again, I need direct link to the official email, shouldn't be hard. Just show me where Putin released it and I'll read it.

@n64dd: Not the same thing, but coordination takes many forms. The pacs listening to their candidates and making moves based on their statements which Gingrich pointed out that Romney was guilty of. Nod-and-wink was a thing where candidates would upload a video via youtube, and pacs would then create an ad with the video. Also a pac can publicly announce the amount of money they raised giving their candidate a fairly clear view of what they've got to work with.

Basically people constantly acknowledge coordination's lack of legality regarding superpacs, but they also discuss that there are loads of ways to get around it.

@n64dd: As far as Trump and Clinton go with superpacs they have both been doing it pretty blatantly for a while .

https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/both-campaigns-enthusiastically-violate-ban-on-super-pac-coordination-watchdog-says/

Hannity is by his own admission a Trump nut sucker.

This is pretty bad damage control.

Evidence is posted and now you're moving the goal post

Edit: Then again, you want to keep the love for Trump you have in the closet.

i would just use this opportunity to point out that Gary Johnson thinks there should be no limits on campaign spending and one of Trump's top three staffers, David Bossie, was the chairman of Citizens United, the reason we're all in this campaign finance mess to begin with.

We need to change it. Who do we trust to change it?

Every single political thread, if the OP does not agree with you, you are immediately there to defend Hilary, the Democrats, whoever. I dunno, maybe sitting on the pc all day, and hitting refresh over and over is not conducive to people here thinking you are anything but a troll or a sycophant for a political party.

you should read hillarys plans to open the borders completely.. shes insane.

As I suspected. What she did was basically break an unenforced law.

Hillary is an expert on doing stuff that SHOULD be illegal and get her charged, but wont. She is not a criminal, but she damn well should be one.

Even if it happens all the time doesnt make it acceptable, or excusable.

If we keep accepting misconduct because it happens all the time. It will keep happening.

anyone who's interested.

https://twitter.com/wikileaks

Hannity, I know you're a deplorable but have some respect for yourself. You're scraping bottom barrel now.

Nobody cares about the possibility of criminality in our corrupt government and they never will until we can get rid of the societal scourge of loving pussy.

problem is when both major politicial parties are doing it and the FEC is a bipartisan agency appointed by both political parties. Again, the only real solution is to overturn Citizen's United. The laws themselves are the problem, where making data public so that anyone, including the people you're not supposed to coordinate with can see them is still not considered coordinating.

With the email shown here, the proposition is in the form of a question. Even if it said get "Brock to do this," you have to be able to show which Brock they're referring to, whether or not Brock actually did this, whether he did it because he was asked, and the specific correspondence to Brock asking Brock to do it. Also, that article is wrong that the Clinton campaign or Podesta has verified anything about the emails themselves. Podesta has verified he was hacked but not the authenticity of this dump.

and that's the larger stupidity of Assange here. You can't just dump 2000 documents at one time during a busy election cycle. The people referenced in those emails will just stall, saying things like "i don't have time to sort through 2000 documents right now to find out what is true and what is false." Further, they'd be stupid to confirm or deny anything in those emails until the entire stack is vetted (and they're likely not going to vet it for us), otherwise you risk reporters and show hosts coming out at you all day asking you to verify this and verify that. It's a predictable defense and you get around it by sorting the documents yourself, finding the most important and separating them into small packets that can easily be consumed by the general public and easily verified by whoever is referenced in them. Normally "document dumping" is what lawfirms and the like do to HIDE information.

@mark1974: You know what, you initial premise of what Hillary will do is why I think I'll vote for Trump. If he is elected president, we are pretty much guaranteed that no one will work with him in his first term, thus no damage can be done, and the status quo can continue. That is infinitely better than actions being taken, as the history of the last 30 years have shown; especially for the middle class and the poor.

@Fuhrer_D: You should do what you think is best. I don't look forward to Hillary's presidency but I would feel ashamed to have an obvious lunatic like Trump representing our country. I think he could do plenty of damage. Either way neither of these candidates want to change the concentration of wealth at the top.

What does that have to do with the fact that you dismissed an article because of the source (genetic fallacy)? An issue is an issue, and even if it is a red herring, it is still an issue which this thread discusses.

Two wrongs dont make a right. Not to mention, Hillary Clinton has been way worse with Super PACs than Trump has been.

Pretty much. What the hell is going on? We're agreeing on a lot of things lately?

If the current president wasn't a corrupt dem who pays ransoms and this wasn't an election year following his 2nd term we all know Hillary would be behind bars right now.