News Martha Raddatz interviews Newt Gingrich about Trump

[Guriosity]

[video=youtube;EO_quS1ktFk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO_quS1ktFk&feature=youtu.be[/video]4

The reason I posted this is due to the media and not against Clinton or pro Trump.

[dirty_ape]

Good god, are we going to hear about a stolen election for years now after Trump loses horribly?

[Guriosity]

[QUOTE=Dirty_Ape;51218551]Good god, are we going to hear about a stolen election for years now after Trump loses horribly?[/QUOTE]

Not the point. The point is the reporter was doing the very thing Newt was talking about.

As for what you said? With as much credit ability as Clinton has? Im thinking at best, Trump will file suit and create a soft movement if she wins. The very worst? Right wing militias will revolt in order to renew the republic if she wins, because of how corrupt she is known to be.

[404 Not Found]

What nobody talks about is that Wikileaks will probably publish anything they are given at this point, Julian has been digging a hole for at least 3 years. Not to mention almost none of the emails directly involve or concern Clinton, and all allegations so far have been implied by people already convinced everything is a conspiracy. Ignore the freely available FBI decision cause they're totally corrupt and in on it bruh.

Pro tip: nobodies opinions on what the law means matter, but prior precedent does and the FBI sided with reality. It was said on FP before had she still been working at the State Dept when this blew up she would have been shitcanned, but not criminally charged.

The reality is a lot of speculation off of [URL="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree"]fruit from the poisonous tree[/URL], and literally none of it can be used in a court. The FBI isn't holding out, the DoJ agreed with the FBI, and they're not idiots. Even a 'special prosecutor' would still see the exact same shit they did and have to try to build a case on it.