For Reasons Unknown, The Fbi Seems To Be Finally Looking Into Clinton's Actions

Fox News, Bret Baier, says that two sources with intimate knowledge of the investigations tell him of two separate Clinton investigations:

1. Cheryl Mills' laptop was not destroyed;
2. At least five foreign governments hacked Clinton's computer;
3. The investigations will continue regardless of the election's outcome; and
4. Barring political obstruction, the investigations will end in an indictment.

I believe the two investigations include the emails themselves, as well as her pay to play scheme using the Clinton Foundation while serving as Secretary of State.

Later: Here's the story, with the video, of the news report with Bret Baier: FBI: Sources Tell Fox News "An Indictment is Likely."

 

The rest of the story: Wall Street Journal

 

Lou Dobbs: At least five foreign services were able to hack into Clinton's server.

 

Of course, the downside is that many of these alternate news sources aren't any more reliable than the ones we're rejecting. Some of them are outright spoofs, intended to fool people just for the fun of it. Others are so heavily agenda driven that they add just enough truth to get people to believe everything that they've added into the mix, and still others are pure misinformation put out by one side or another. Then there are those, such as you might see on Facebook, that have a sensational headline and lead-in that is intended to make you believe one thing, then if you actually click into the story, that's not what it says at all. They do this because they know that most people won't actually click into it, but might simply accept the headline and the blurb as the news. Mainstream media Facebook posts often do this too, by the way.

 

I get fooled every now and then, probably because it's easier to get someone to believe something that they want to believe is true, but I have been checking things out before posting them. I won't swear that everything I share here will be a hundred percent accurate, but I try, and I make a point of acknowledging it when I post something that I'm not sure of. I will also come back and correct it if I later find that it was wrong or misleading. I've spent so much time trying to track down the sources behind articles supposedly based on Wikileaks dumps that turn out to be fake that I seldom bother any more unless they can provide a link to where that document actually is on Wikileaks. Far too many people have pasted a Wikileaks logo onto a falsified email and then published it as the basis for a story that has no basis in fact. Most of the legitimate articles based on Wikileaks documents will post a link to the source documents on the Wikileaks site, so I have come to assume that if there is no link, the story is probably fake.

These are most often anti-Clinton or anti-Obama articles that I might otherwise like to believe but, for God's sake, these people have actually done enough stuff to keep the stories going, so there is no need to make stuff up. For all I know, many of these stories might be put out by the Hillary side, trying to get people not to believe any of it.

 

I use Snopes. Sometimes it saves time. I don't necessarily accept their decision about whether something is true or false because there are times when they simply accept the liberal argument as being factual. For example, the question might be whether the Obama Administration was guilty of one thing or another, and they might say that the allegation was false because Obama denies it. Well, that's not proof. Still, more often than not, they can cut down on the research time.