So to be clear Jimmy, are you saying that you think Giuliani is wrong about 9/11 (or was even actively involved in it), but right when he expresses the opinion that Clinton could be successfully prosecuted? How do you reach that position? And how do you suppose that Giuliani can reach a considered opinion about whether Clinton should be prosecuted? How would he have had access to the evidence? Do you share your mole at the FBI?
I agree BB that that is a bizarre approach from someone who has previously said (rightly) that the Executive should stay well away from the Judiciary. The hatred of all things Clinton is clearly a big driver.
There is no doubt that the Democrats made a mistake nominating Clinton. She is very unpopular. Trump was able to tap into that anti-Clinton feeling with his aggressive anti-establishment rhetoric. Clinton still managed to win a bigger share of the popular vote, but couldn't defeat an opponent who when all is said and done is deeply, deeply flawed. I can't help thinking that Sanders would have seen Trump off comfortably because he would have taken that anti-establishment steam out of the Trump campaign, and in the end that was really all that Trump had to offer.
I don't know where you get your opinions from B Boy, I suspect the BBC.
I base mine on facts not someone else's.
When those facts change, so do my opinions.
You should try it sometimes.
I'm trying to establish which facts have changed for you and why, Jimmy.
The 9/11 attack was either perpetrated by Al Qaeda or it wasn't and is incapable of being changed, so is Giuliani right or wrong when he puts the attack at AQ's door? If he's right on that, why have your view of the fact of that changed? If he's wrong then why do you attach so much weight to his views on Clinton, particularly given that he can't have had access to the evidence needed to formulate a considered opinion and had a political motive for expressing the view that he did.
You told us earlier that the FBI had found 'evidence of massive corruption' by Clinton in the Weiner material and that that the FBI was your source for that assertion. What had been found at that time and your source are facts that cannot have changed over time so do you stand by them?
I don't think you understand the nature of evidence and how to use it. Forming an opinion and then scouring the web for dodgy websites that accord with it is probably not a great idea.
I have no facts regarding Al Qaeda's involvement in the 9/11. and neither have you.
If you have please submit them.
Please do not propose the "confessions" of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, extorted after 183 waterboardings. BTW how's his trial progressing. No proof of guilt yet?
In the absence of facts, I have no opinion, and am amused at your attempts to draw me into your conspiracy theories.
It is a fact and on record Guiliani's proposals for allowing the law to take its natural course with regard to both the compromised server and the Clinton Foundation.
I base my opinion on that.
Even though I fear that Obama will pardon an entirely "innocent" Clinton, in the court of public opinion she will be damned.
Which dodgy websites have I quoted as fact? None.
Now as I've agreed with Smiler to suspend comments until after the inauguration I hope you can rejoin this thread with us when the dust settles.
