http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/31/hillary-clinton-backer-paid-500g-to-fund-women-accusing-trump-sexual-misconduct-before-election-day-report-says.html

Ok, this has to break some kind of law, right?  Fraud?  Conspiracy?  Can we finally call something libel?

On top of these texts, you have a rather unseemly pattern of behavior from some top officials that feed into the bias narrative at the bureau. For starters, David Ohr met with the authors of the dossier. He was a top DOJ official, holding the title of deputy attorney general. He has since been demoted after this meeting was made public. To boot, his wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion in 2016. Andrew Weissmann, one of Muller’s top lieutenants, was spotted at Hillary Clinton’s election night party. Regardless of what their reporting staff has filed, the editorial board took a remarkably different take on the FBI’s actions since the Strzok’s texts were made public. They noted that there’s mounting evidence that the FBI tried to meddle in a presidential election. The image of the FBI is also made worse by their pervasive stonewalling. Kimberley Strassel of the Journal added that these antics were being done to save the FBI from embarrassment. They’re abusing secrecy powers if that’s the case. The FBI had until yesterday to turn over the unredacted transcripts of the interviews between former FBI Director James Comey’s two top aides—FBI chief of staff James Rybicki and FBI attorney Trisha Anderson—who might shed light into the activities of Strzok, Sally Yates, and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, demanded these documents be turned over to congressional investigators. In typical fashion, the FBI failed to meet the deadline, or purposefully ignored it. Oh, I’m sorry—why were these two top FBI aides interviewed? Well, as it turns out, James Comey was being investigated for violated the Hatch Act with his October letter to Congress informing them the FBI would be reviewing more emails found on the laptop of Anthony Weiner, the ex-husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

They managed to ignore the part about:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

So how many of you guys are members of a well-regulated militia?

Coming forward in what manner? This is still an on-going investigation and thus it makes sense that certain information isn't being released to the press, nor should it be.

You said he should be charged, so I asked which statutes you think he violated. You didn't answer but instead tried to turn it around.