Phil Clarke, the USA elected the more honest of two candidates to be their President.

Subsequent events and revelations indicate that Trump should have won by a landslide.

If you believe in justice, could you now balance out your previous efforts, by referring to St Hillary as a liar, and don't forget there was also DNA evidence of her husband's sexual predation. That would help re dress the ying and yang of blow by blow US politics.

Poster Kim tells us Mr Clinton is an actual rapist, so mere predator is something of a relief. I fail to see the relevance, however of his sexual misconduct, to his wife's fitness for office.

I've crunched the numbers and Mrs C would need to tell 5 lies a day between now and April 2019, just to draw level with Dishonest Don. But then he has a huge headstart.

".......after opening a letter containing white powder "

Was the letter addressed to the Clintons?

Feb 12, 2018 at 7:01 PM | Phil Clarke

You don't understand truth, honesty and facts. Is that what attracted you to Climate Scientists, or did they find you?

Gwen. Are you implying Mrs Trump jr. would open the Clinton's mail? What I don't understand is how cornflower can make someone nauseous.

What I don't understand is how cornflower can make someone nauseous.

Feb 12, 2018 at 10:39 PM | Supertroll

I am not a coeliac, but I did try gluten free bread 45 years ago.

Mr and Mrs Clinton have both confused each other, themselves, legal and justice investigators, the US media, and US public, about where they weren't, who they weren't with, and when not. Amongst the self delusion, trying to self-address an envelope must be problematic.

Feb 12, 2018 at 10:18 PM | tomo

Your Guardian link goes to an article that starts:

"Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives, the Guardian has been told."

The journalists credited with the story are:
Luke Harding, Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Nick Hopkins

If you read some of their other articles, it does seem that they are "told" exactly what Team Clinton would like them to print, with references to a "new" Trump-Russian dossier.

Presumably, the "new" Trump-Russian dossier is as impeccable as the dodgy one, otherwise it would have been leaked before with equally dodgy provenance, via the same unreliable sources.

Steele, Blumenthal and Shearer have run out of friends in high places. UK Justice may be fairer, but the US would offer a better plea bargain, provided someone else doesn't beat them to it, (or a pulp) first.

… the implications of it spilling out uncontrolled could wreck American standing for a generation of more

I have told you a million times not to exaggerate. Besides ….

A new survey by the Pew Research Centre of 40,447 people in 37 countries shows that trust in Mr Trump pales in comparison with Barack Obama’s final ratings. Whereas 64% of those surveyed had confidence in Mr Obama to do the right thing, just 22% are similarly optimistic about his successor, whom they described as “arrogant” (75%), “intolerant” (65%) and “dangerous” (62%).

Citizens in Western Europe put no more stock in Mr Trump—who took office just five months ago—than they did in George W. Bush, the architect of the highly unpopular war in Iraq, when he limped out of the White House in 2008. Respondents’ approval rating for America overall has also slumped, from 64% to 49%.

Too late.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/06/daily-chart-19

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/06/daily-chart-19

Feb 13, 2018 at 12:10 PM | Phil Clarke

I also note that you missed the date of the article. Not many people trust those liars any more, as they quote lies, neatly presented as intelligence, by discredited agencies.

Evidence in Law and Climate Science is not produced by dodgy dossiers and public opinion surveys, despite what expert Peer Reviewed Climate Scientists have proved to the financial satisfaction of each other.

 True Pundit occasionally publishes a legitimate story, some are conspiracies.  This source also currently delivers news straight from the Daily Caller which has a strong right-wing bias. Most articles from True Pundit have anonymous authors.  This source has also been flagged for false information and has an unproven claim. Simply not trustworthy.

From <https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/true-pundit/>

Easy to see why the intersection set of fans of True Pundit and those who basically trust The Economist might be very small. ;-)

Easy to see why the intersection set of fans of True Pundit and those who basically trust The Economist might be very small. ;-)

Feb 14, 2018 at 1:47 PM | Phil Clarke

Easy to see which sources are likely to be unreliable and full of lies. Phil Clarke prefers them.

Phil Clarke has "also been flagged for false information and has an unproven claim. Simply not trustworthy."

stewgreen & Phil Clarke,

stewgreen's link sets out FACTS, and then provides this OPINION based on those FACTS. If Team Clinton want to change opinions, they must prove their innocence, concerning the facts set out in Items 1-8.

"9.  It is right to say that this episode is the worst abuse of political power in American history related to elections. Watergate is nothing by comparison. That involved people not employed by the government.  Later it involved a cover-up in which Nixon participated.

Watergate did not involve the DOJ and the FBI – two institutions which must be non-partisans for this Republic of ours.

This case does involve the FBI and DOJ.  It also is foolish not to assume that Loretta Lynch and President Obama were ignorant of the goings on – if not involved in them.

Finally, the dishonest investigation of Hillary who committed actual crimes should not be acceptable. Nor should FBI or DOJ officials be allowed to alter events and Court proceedings for political purposes.

If we let this go, and people are not brought to justice, we will have forever damaged our Republic and the World’s view of us as a nation of laws."

Not too off-topic.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/

Case dismissed as Ball's article was opinion and "Derogatory but not defamatory".

The Judge's opinion, however, does not provide much in the way of comfort for Dr Tim …

"despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth. "

"While Dr. Ball presents his central thesis that climate science has been corrupted by politics, the Article offers little in the way of support for that thesis, apart from vague references to missing or falsified data and political manipulation, unsubstantiated and erroneous references to Dr. Weaver as referred to above, and a recommendation that people read a 45-year-old text on climate science written by Professor Hubert Lamb.

 ....Overall, even as an opinion piece, the Article presents as poorly written and it provides little in the way of credible support for Dr. Ball’s thesis"

Personally I think Weaver should have accepted Ball's 2011 apology and walked away, Ball basically conceded that the piece in question was his usual BS…

My article entitled “Corruption of Climate Change has Created 30 Lost Years” contained untrue statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. The article has since been withdrawn from the Internet website of Canada Free Press, where it was originally published in January 2011.

Contrary to what I stated in my article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”); (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010. I hereby unequivocally retract my suggestion that Dr. Weaver sought to dissociate himself from the scientific work of the IPCC.

As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. My article failed to mention these facts although they were publicly available.

I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with my presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling me during my talk. Further, I do not dispute Dr. Weaver’s credentials or competence as a climate scientist and university professor. While Dr. Weaver and I have different views on the cause of global warming, I acknowledge that Dr. Weaver has at all times acted honestly and with integrity.
I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.

From <http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm>

In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece

But let's shop around for a left coast SLAPP happy jurisdiction .