They won't, ever, because they're totally full of shit tin foil hat folks making up bullshit because 1/4 of Americans will believe any insanity Trump tells them. Are you buying it?

Notice he offers zero actual specific charges that should be forthcoming, just some names of people he dislikes.
Lots of sound and fury over nothing, designed to delegitimize the investigation into Trump's crimes and those investigating them.

This is another Faux news birther/benghazi/email red herring conspiracy theory....hide and watch.

Odd that the part where it's a pure product of the RNC is so easily and completely forgotten because it ended up in someone else's hands late in the game.

You mean like when anti Clinton agents actually leaked their biased "evidence" against Clinton repeatedly (like the emails that weren't new or evidence of a thing that those anti Clinton agents presented as evidence of wrongdoing days before the election) with text/email trails degrading her in a similar way, but who weren't removed from that investigation in stark contrast to this investigation....that bias? You relished it then and defended it vehemently.

Um...that label was directed at Mr Jordan who was feigning outrage throughout this video and is undeniably a useless partisan dumbass, but if the shoe fits.....

Edit: lol, fusion GPS, an investigative company hired by the RNC in an effort to save itself from Trump.....Faux News' newest red herring, following a long line of red herrings.....Vince Foster, Benghazi, email scandal, birther movement, secret Muslim, death panels, pizzagate, uranium one.....how many alleged scandals have to fall apart before you realize they're incapable of truth?

What transcript of what conversation?! Trump claimed to have been tapped, based on a Fox report, based on an Alex Jones theory. No evidence, like a transcript of any conversations Trump has had, has ever been produced....none. I have o idea what you're talking about.
And Faux news itself had to do a special report clearly stating that they never received the tips Napolitano claimed they had received in his commentary implicating the British, and they have NO evidence he was ever under surveillance....full stop.
Napolitano's commentary was pure bullshit, and they've apparently (astonishingly) taken him off the air for spreading it.
"The Russians did it" is from the FBI....Comey's the name, inserting himself into politics is his game....but he's backed up by the heads of no less than 17 intelligence agencies on the Russian involvement claim.

The right created this man, he's everything they've been shouting to the roof tops about for 20 years. Now they have this frankenstein's monster of a president who will undoubtedly set the party and their ideals back for years and they've all buried their heads in the sand like everything is peachy. Reap what you've sown republicans, reap what you have sown faux news!

Obama never acted so infantile and rude to Faux news, even though they are much worse about spreading fake news. He answered their questions and gave them many (>11) interviews where they consistently asked loaded bait questions, hounded him about fake scandals, taunted, insulted, and rudely interrupted him over and over, he even sat down with Oreilly again after papa bear was such an insulting disrespectful asshole the first time. He did call them out a few times, but mostly just ignored the insanity they spew.
Trump, on the other hand, can't let any slight go without becoming unhinged, and he retaliates like a 2 year old at any perceived enemy, and fawns over anyone that compliments him. CNN had the audacity to report an unflattering but important story about claims being made about the president elect and so they'll be blacklisted for his administrations term (imagine if the same story was about Obama, any news organization not talking about it would be called apologists and left wing propagandists that should be strung up from the nearest tree) Such transparent hyper narcissism, so easily exploited by others much smarter than he, makes him incredibly dangerous for us all.
Singling out a news organization that's not been friendly to you as liars and treating them as enemies is a clearly recognized Nazi tactic they used in their rise to power. It should be watched carefully lest this behavior evolves into totalitarian fascism.

The thing is, people still believe that Obama is the Antichrist and that he is destroying America. On one hand, I don't understand at all where that sentiment comes from as he obviously has done a great deal of good in his time in office. On the other hand Faux News and their surrogates (like Winstonfield, BobKnight33, etc.) have been having a histrionic shitfit over nothing for 8 years. They're not interested in facts, but in making people 'feel' like Obama is hurting them. It was like this even before Obama was elected with the Birther and ObamaMuslim movement. Feels before reals for the right, remember.

And on the third hand, I'm Canadian and Obama personally came by my house the other day to give me the guns he took from you so... Thanks, Obama!

What?!? Napolitano believes a completely crazy conspiracy theory with absolutely no evidence to back it up based on pure hyper biased conjecture, and is willing to 'report' it as a fact with faux news's backing?!?
This must be a day of the week that ends in "y".

Now, as to the theory.... that a patriotic NSA agent, angry at Clinton's possible lack of safeguards on her emails which might contain sensitive information, hacked in and stole those emails and made them all public, doing exponentially more damage than her actions did, and exactly the maximum damage he was angry she made at all possible....it's just totally bat shit insane and defies all logic....so of course Napolitano and faux viewers believe it.

Sorry to all for answering a wall of text with another wall of text.

I have far more than just circumstantial evidence, but I do have a few truckloads of that as well to make me think this duck is a duck.
You have no proof that those things in the lake are ducks, why do you keep insisting they are? Because 100% of evidence you DO have says "duck" and nothing contrary besides the ranting cat lady that loves them tells you it's really a swan that lays golden eggs?
Same goes for Clinton supporting and displaying unethical, dishonest behavior repeatedly. I don't have verifiable indisputable "proof", but all evidence I have, including multiple videos of her doing it, and constant reports (none from Faux news) of things like her handing DWS a key position in her campaign directly after proof of her actions at the DNC (for Clinton's sole benefit) that were so bad they forced her out of the DNC (or give me another more plausible reason Clinton would hire someone that absolutely ensures she won't get the Sanders voters she needs to win and that's been tossed out in disgrace, so she is a HUGE NEGATIVE for the campaign she's just been hired to lead, so absolutely not "skilled" at the job, and I'll consider it), actions which were incontrovertibly dishonest and unethical if they've been reported at all truthfully, and you have offered zero evidence or even theory that it hasn't been reported truthfully, or evidence that that's not the reason she just hired her, much less proof, you have a theory not supported by reason or evidence that she was hired for being so good at her job...uh.....

I'm not a court of law trying to put her away, I'm an independent voter, appearance is important, and she appears unethical to say the least, without listening to a word from Faux or any right wing media, BTW. She has demonstrated enough clear dishonesty for me to make up my mind about her in one answer in one live debate...."I supported $15 an hour for years....I don't support a $15 an hour minimum wage....I support $15 an hour", and done and/or said nothing to dissuade me from that opinion.....enough said.

BTW, the only actual accusation I made about Clinton was that she rewarded clear undisputed unethical and dishonest behavior with a top position in her campaign...that is absolutely true unless you're saying she didn't really hire DWS and everyone is lying.

Clearly if she thinks hiring DWS to head her campaign is going to get her the Sanders supporters votes she needs to win, she has zero insight about what the public thinks.

Yes, her JOB was to ensure a fair election process first and foremost, she failed. Secondly to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, she failed, she made them look like cheaters and backstabbers, hurting them horrendously and probably losing the election. How is she "skilled" again? What part of her job did she get right again?

It doesn't matter if her cheating is really why Sanders lost, it looks like it is, and it went 100% against her duties to be impartial and safeguard the process. If you cheat on a test and get the highest score on the test, you don't get to say 'it wasn't the cheating that made me score that high, I would have been the highest score anyway, so I'm validictorian', you get a zero and are disqualified....that goes for if someone cheats FOR you too, even if you didn't ask them to, just allowed it and lied about it when asked, but that's not the case here, she was totally complicit, she had her lawyers instructing them on how to toss people off the voter rolls etc.....at least according to all EVIDENCE...but I don't have a paper trail in hand to PROVE it...happy? (sweet Jesus...it's come to this)
No other reason why he may have lost matters since she cheated to win. (and BTW, the DNC emails show some underhanded reasons why he lost like that with minorities, not that it matters)

Carl Rove was protected by Bush after he said anyone in his administration involved would be out, right? So yes, still on Bush.

Did I say "you"? Are you ALL of her supporters, or did I say ALL of her supporters? The DNC and SOME OF her supporters rigged the system to shove her down our throats, which shows me that they were not at all confident she would win in a fair primary, contrary to your insistence. You have no proof she might have won anyway.

Yes, being a governor is more governing experience than being a senator (especially while running for president). (to be honest, I thought he had also been a senator, but it seems not) Secretary of State is good experience, but not at governing, good for understanding foreign affairs, something the president has a secretary of state for. First lady wasn't governing, she didn't pass bills, she was more of a connected political activist. Palin didn't even serve a full term, so no, not the same.

Time will tell, it's still possible that Trump might do something horrendous enough to turn off his rabid supporters....but he would have to suck a black mans dick on stage or worse to do that it seems. Unlikely. Her support is smaller today and FAR less excited about her....that's insane, yes, but true.

I can't have blinders on about why Sanders lost because I have a bag that was put over my head because the process was rigged, so we have no idea what it would look like if it were not. Maybe with the DNC's help talking about his work for civil rights he would have gotten 75% of blacks and Latinos, he certainly has been working for them for longer and in more meaningful ways.

We had a GREAT candidate with a statistically MUCH BETTER chance of winning a general election. They screwed him viciously. You want me to reward that?

Clinton does NOT always operate within the system. That's a major complaint about her, and the big issue here, she's rewarding operating totally outside of and contrary to the system.
Her biggest problem is her unfavorability rating....which may be tied with Trump in the percentage of people that dislike/distrust her, but is exponentially above Trump in the level that those people dislike her...and she's running against the party of hate and handing them more ammunition to get their voters out daily.

I don't think I compared Clinton and Trump...I refuse to agree that I have only 2 choices. Yes of the two, she's preferable. She's still absolutely not my choice. What others do is their concern. Penn voting for Clinton does not sway my vote, nor do the republicans voting for her any more than the democrats voting for Trump convince me he's a good choice.

I live in Ca. Clinton gets our electoral votes no matter how I vote. If I lived in a swing state that was close and mattered, I might reconsider voting out of fear, but I would have to completely ignore my own morals and ethics to even go that far, and would never be able to forgive myself.
Fear is the mind killer. Never do anything important based on your fear is my advice.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Not her firs public lie, in fact she's been publicly lying about herself since she met Trump, with his help.
Apparently she's repeatedly claimed to have a degree she never had....she actually left college before completing (nearly failing) her freshman year and never returned....but her biography both online and in her introduction at the convention claimed.....
"began modeling at age 16, but she only began working full-time after obtaining a degree. She graduated “in design and architecture at University in Slovenia"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-college-claims_us_578dd95ce4b0c53d5cfac0dc

What a pair of enormous frauds. The Republicans have one hell of a ticket. This is what you get when your entire party gets their "information" from Faux news.

So wait...she's in trouble for not turning over an email and instead deleting it, but somehow Faux News and no one else has this email? Uh huh.....

I'll believe it when the DOJ says publicly that's what they're charging her with, not when Napolitano claims it...remember, he's the one that said he was CERTAIN that Alito was assassinated with a pillow.

IF, and it's a HUGE "if", this is true, it's terrible for her, but judging the story based on the source, it's highly likely (>95%) that this is in no way true and is nothing more than more Fox manufactured conspiracy fodder.

This needs a *lies , because it's more than likely that it's all Fox lies, but if not, then it's about her lies, so either way.

@bobknight33,
What color is the sky in your universe?
I ask you because your angry statements are actually diametrically opposed to reality.
The republicans are grasping control with both hands and a net, while the democrats are failing miserably at their attempts to stop the power grab....

Examples from just this week, the republicans just added to the budget (which, BTW, is simply not how they system works, and is simply a way to blackmail the government into capitulating to their plans or they'll just 'shut down the government' again, wasting billions more...again)....
1)an increase in the amount corporations can donate to them by 10 times, because republicans think corporations don't have enough say in our government and want to give them 10 times more voice (but not citizens)
2)a removal of the protections against wall street frauds and cheating that were hard won in the last few years, apparently attempting to ensure we have another avoidable 'recession' as soon as possible, and ensure that those responsible are not ever prosecuted for their frauds, but are 'bailed out' instead...again...
3)removal of minimum standards for public school lunches, because they believe poor children don't need vegetables, vitamins, protein, or micro nutrients, carbs and sugars are just fine for them.
EDIT: 4) and just to prove they don't really want smaller, localized government and don't want more power for the states and less for the fed, the republicans have also 'countermanded' the local people's vote in DC on legalized marijuana, making it illegal again there (contrary to the actual vote that was over 60% PRO legalized recreational marijuana).
If only Obama would use the line item veto, it wouldn't be an issue, but he won't (because he's not a power hungry dictator, contrary to Faux News 'reporting').

America is sliding away from socialism, and into corporatism. At least socialism is designed to benefit the populace, what we are getting from the republicans is designed to benefit their pocket books and corporate America, not the people.

As has been mentioned above, you must simply have no idea what socialism is if you think America is even headed in that direction, we're headed the other way buddy.

That's not how science works.
You're just wrong. Models have not 'failed' just because Glen Beck said so.
The 'debate' in the scientific community ended over a decade ago.
You need to listen to someone else besides Faux news talking heads then. Scientists are out there, and right here trying to tell you the science, but if you don't like their data or conclusions you just claim they're liars and cut and paste a ton of right wing lies, confusion, and BS in rebuttal.
Find me a single SCIENTIFIC organization that still questions climate change as fact, and I'll show you an organization that's not really scientific but political masquerading as scientific.

That's hilarious...invent? I guess they "invented" deep water and vertical currents too?

The climate models have not 'failed'. They are not designed to predict short term weather. They only predict long term global trends, and are pretty much right on by that measure (contrary to what Faux News seems to have told you). The models have always predicted colder winters and hotter summers, exactly what we're seeing.

You seem to think if the temperature goes down in winter, or one year is not hotter than the last, it's proof that 'global warming' is a myth/hoax. That's simply wrong. (I still have yet to hear a logical reasoning for anyone perpetrating such a 'hoax' though, scientists could clean up if any credentialed, peer reviewed climatologist could prove the hoax and sell that proof to industry, why has that not happened if it's about making money amorally?)

This 'invention'-deep water warming and IPO are not a new ideas, maybe it's just the first you've heard of them?