# data[].attributes.body
This article is obviously about Gary Johnson, an independent candidate in the 2016 US election. In this article, it's Gary Johnson talking about how if you don't like the 2016 election options, there is another choice. He says that he is with his running mate named Bill Weld. The rest of the article talks about why you should vot for him.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Op-Ed Contributor

Credit... Al Drago/The New York Times

The America I know wasn't on the television screen on Monday night. My America is about the freedom to make choices, pursue your dreams and use your skills as entrepreneurs. It is about having more choices than just red versus blue.

Americans want to be able to choose a president who is capable of reason, of learning from failures, and of telling them the truth, even when it hurts. Most of all, they want to choose a president who will adhere to the Constitution and will make government live within its means.

I'm offering that choice. I wasn't part of the presidential debate on Monday, but as Americans listened in dismay to the so-called major parties' candidates, Google searches for "Gary Johnson" skyrocketed.

I'm the third candidate - the leader of the Libertarian Party. My name will be on every ballot alongside that of my running mate, Bill Weld, who like me was a twice-elected Republican governor of a strongly Democratic state. Contrary to the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, Bill and I don't believe the United States is a polarized nation.

We don't deny that there are very real tensions on the fringes, and we can't simply ignore those tensions. But when it comes down to the basics, most Americans really aren't that far apart.

Our kids are better educated than ever before. Our technology enables entrepreneurship and transparency. Our military is second to none, as it should be. But our two-party political system is an entirely different story. Hyper-partisanship may be entertaining, but it's a terrible way to try to run a country. We're the alternative - and we're the only ticket that offers Americans a chance to find common ground.

People might call us fiscal conservatives. Like most Americans, I believe that government does too much and costs too much. As governor of New Mexico, I vetoed more than 750 bills and reduced government involvement in business, better known as "crony capitalism."

Some would call us social liberals. I've been vocal in criticizing the disparity in the treatment of black Americans by the police. I want reform in our criminal justice and sentencing systems. "Three strikes" laws and mandatory minimums have put the United States among the world leaders in incarceration. Treating drug use and abuse as crimes, rather than health issues, has put far too many Americans behind bars.

What would government be like in a Johnson administration? First, we would begin the conversation about the size of government by submitting a real balanced budget. Every government program would have to justify its expenditures, every year. Cuts of up to 20 percent or more would be on the table for all programs, including military spending. Changes to Social Security and Medicare must also be considered.

As governors, we balanced our budgets and reduced taxes: I cut taxes 14 times; Bill Weld did so 21 times in his six years leading Massachusetts. It just requires commitment and certainty.

Hillary Clinton's and Donald J. Trump's proposals call for much more spending. Both parties are responsible for our unsustainable fiscal problems: President George W. Bush nearly doubled our national debt, to $10 trillion from $5.7 trillion. President Obama is on track to double it again.

Second, we would protect the Constitution and civil liberties and stop treating immigration as a bad thing. In the difficult case of abortion, I support a woman's right to choose. I've long supported civil liberties, including marriage equality and freedom from mass surveillance.

Given the way it has served as both a launching pad and a crash-landing site for Republican presidential prospects, immigration was strangely absent from Monday's debate. Neither the Republican-controlled Congress nor President Obama has done anything to fix the dysfunctional immigration system. Deporting millions of noncriminal undocumented immigrants and building a wall, as Mr. Trump proposes, are ludicrous ideas.

A majority of Americans can actually agree on a solution. We would allow those immigrants who are here without documents, but with otherwise clean records, to come forward, pay taxes, undergo a background check and legally reside in the United States. We'd eliminate categories and quotas on immigration, and border enforcement would be devoted to keeping out real criminals and would-be terrorists.

Third, we would offer free trade to all nations, but limit military intervention to when our nation is attacked. We would honor all treaty obligations and pursue strategic alliances that made our country safer.

Mrs. Clinton wants to continue a muddled mix of intervention, regime change and bombing campaigns. That approach brought us Syria, Iraq, Libya and failed nation-building in Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve clear objectives, with a well-drawn distinction between defense and futile interventions. And our troops deserve authorization from Congress for their activities overseas, an important detail that has fallen by the wayside.

The same common-sense attitude applies to trade and diplomacy. Our ticket is the only one to support free trade. The goal is to enhance prosperity and peace without sending our young people to war.

Less than six weeks before Election Day, independents and, particularly, young voters are increasingly turning to Bill Weld and me as reasonable, rational and experienced candidates. We are the party that can break the partisan gridlock which for too long has kept real solutions out of reach.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Gary Johnson: Take a Deep Breath, Voters. There Is a Third Way. (Published 2016)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Op-Ed Contributor The America I know wasn't on the television screen on Monday night. My America is about the freedom to make choices, pursue your dreams and use your skills as entrepreneurs. It is about having more choices than just red versus blue.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about how Hillary had secret emails and how the FBI knew about them before everybody knew about the issue. The way everybody knew was by senior officials were told that someone found secret emails on a certain persons computer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Senior FBI officials were informed about the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at least two weeks before Director James Comey notified Congress, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

The officials said that Comey was told that there were new emails before he received a formal briefing last Thursday, although the precise timing is unclear.

The information goes beyond the details provided in the letter that Comey sent to lawmakers last week declaring that he was restarting the inquiry into whether Clinton mishandled classified material during her tenure as secretary of state. He wrote in the Friday letter that "the investigative team briefed me yesterday" about the additional emails.

The people familiar with the investigation said that senior officials had been informed weeks earlier that a computer belonging to former congressman Anthony Weiner, D-New York, contained emails potentially pertinent to the Clinton investigation. Clinton's top aide, Huma Abedin, shared the computer with her husband, from whom she is now separated.

Comey did not notify Congress as soon as he learned about the emails because officials wanted additional information before proceeding, the officials said.

Even after Comey received the desired information, major questions still remain - for instance, how many emails are related to Clinton or contain classified information. Since notifying Congress, Comey has drawn intense criticism from lawmakers in both parties as well as prominent former law enforcement officials for publicizing the investigation so close to the election when so little was known.

It is unclear what FBI agents have learned since discovering the emails in early October. But officials say they gained enough information from the email metadata to take the next step, seeking a warrant to review the actual emails. That legal step prompted Comey's letter to Congress, which has made him a central figure during the stretch run of the presidential campaign.

"He needed to make an informed decision, knowing that once he made that decision, he was taking it to another level," an official with knowledge of the decision-making process said.

Law enforcement officials on Oct. 3 seized the computer belonging to Weiner, who was under investigation for allegedly sending suggestive online messages to a teenage girl. As they examined his computer, investigators quickly stumbled on emails tied to Abedin. She and Weiner separated in August. Abedin, like Clinton, used an email address that was routed through Clinton's private server.

Soon after the investigators found the new trove of thousands of emails, they notified the separate team of FBI agents in Washington that worked on the probe into Clinton's private email server, officials said. Comey said in July that the investigation was complete and that he would recommend to prosecutors that no charges be brought.

After the agents on the Clinton case were notified in early October about the newly discovered emails, they in turn told FBI leaders about them.

At that point, the leaders did not believe they had enough information to make a decision about what to do next, officials said.

The senior FBI officials instructed the agents to do everything they could within legal limits to determine the relevance of the new emails, one official said. That review, including a closer examination of the email metadata, was an attempt to figure out the scope and volume of what the agents had found.

An FBI spokesman declined to comment.

In notifying lawmakers on Friday about the new investigative steps, Comey said he had been "briefed" about the newly discovered emails a day earlier but did not mention that he had first heard about them before that. The news media has widely reported that Comey was first told about the emails last week.

A formal briefing for Comey with the investigative team was held Oct. 27 at FBI headquarters. At that point, Comey was given a complete presentation of everything the team knew about the trove.

"It was a combination of assessments by the investigative team as to what it might be," the official said.

Much was unknown about the contents and relevance of the thousands of emails. How many were to or from Clinton? Did any contain classified information? How many were duplicates of material the FBI had already reviewed? Was any of this significant to the Clinton email investigation that had been completed?

"At that point, there was no way for Comey to know if the (Clinton investigators) had already seen the emails before or if they were new, old or different," an official said. "All of that was just unknown."

But Comey and others felt there was enough information at that point to pursue a warrant, which would permit the investigators on the Clinton case to read the emails, officials said. They could not read them without legal permission because the emails had been discovered in the separate criminal probe involving Weiner.

When Comey and the officials decided to seek a warrant, they knew that would involve more people, both at the FBI and the Justice Department. Comey was concerned that the explosive information that they had to renew the Clinton investigation would leak out.

"It could not be done in secret," an official with knowledge of the investigation said. "It's a volatile subject and a major topic in the presidential campaign."

But the overriding factor in Comey's decision was that he felt he had to tell Congress what he was doing because he had testified under oath this past summer and "told Congress and the world" that the Clinton email investigation was complete, and now that was no longer true, an official said.

Then, Comey had to figure out what to say to lawmakers, when he knew so little. He wanted the letter to be accurate and "circumspect," the official said.

"He wanted it to be carefully, thoughtfully done and say no more than his investigators knew," the official said.

After the formal briefing, staffers in Comey's office contacted senior officials at the Justice Department to notify them about the director's decision. The next day, Comey sent his letter.

Two officials familiar with the case said it is unclear whether investigators will be able to conclude their review of the new emails before the election.

President Barack Obama addressed the controversy in an interview posted Wednesday by NowThisNews, saying, "I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations we don't operate on innuendo, and we don't operate on incomplete information, and we don't operate on leaks."

"When this was investigated thoroughly last time the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations was she had made some mistakes but that there wasn't anything there that was prosecutable," Obama said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FBI leaders knew about new emails for weeks before Comey letter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Senior FBI officials were informed about the discovery of new emails potentially relevant to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server at least two weeks before Director James Comey notified Congress, according to federal officials familiar with the investigation.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how Donald Trump said that 650 million people will move into the USA in a week if Hillary Clinton is elected president. This article is how wrong he is and that it is impossible. At the end, it says that he says things for effect.

# data[].attributes.body
This editorial cartoon talks about how if people knew about independent candidates, they would vote for them, and if they knew he had a chance. I'm not sure what the other part on the right is but I couldn't find another cartoon that made sense.

# data[].attributes.body
This editorial cartoon talks about how the different candidates can do all of these bad things and it won't affect how they get votes.

# data[].attributes.body
This editorial cartoon talks about how when people look "into" Donald Trump, they don't find anything sweet.

# data[].attributes.body
This ad talks about how Donald Trump is going to put "you" first. The advertisement is put in a happy mood so that it makes you happy and want to vote for him. It is all about how he will take care of you

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ad of the Week

Cheering crowds and Trump-branded skyscrapers mark a new ad from Donald J. Trump's campaign, titled " Movement," its first commercial of the general election that is uplifting in tone.

THE AD: The fast-paced ad cycles through different scenes: Mr. Trump taking the stage at the Republican National Convention to applause, him on a tarmac and then on a podium, and him opening his new hotel in Washington - and that's just the first five seconds.

A narrator proclaims: "It's a movement, not a campaign; its leader, Donald Trump," with thundering drums punctuating his point, culminating in the longest shot of the ad: a seconds-long look at a towering, gleaming Trump hotel in Chicago.

The ad then moves into rapid-fire political truisms - "Dreaming big, building bigger; united for family, jobs, country; defined by freedom" - illustrated with scenes of American flags, a soldier returning home, a battleship resting at sunset and shots depicting a diverse group of people engaged in time-honored activities like chalking sidewalks with "U.S.A." and hosting lemonade stands in American suburbs. The ad closes with the narrator proclaiming: "Together, we'll make America great again," as scene after scene of campaign rallies culminate with a double thumbs-up from Mr. Trump.

THE MESSAGE: The quick cuts and pacing convey the sense of movement Mr. Trump is claiming. But while it is largely a pro-Trump ad, it sneaks in a critical note about his opponent, Hillary Clinton. As the narrator talks about "leaving the past behind," it shows a clip of Mrs. Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, from a 1992 "60 Minutes" interview when Mr. Clinton was questioned about a reported affair with Gennifer Flowers.

THE TAKEAWAY: Until now, every ad from Mr. Trump has been negative in tone and harshly critical of Mrs. Clinton, while the candidate has claimed on the stump that his opponent was running a negative, hate-filled campaign. It strikes a balance, with an energetic and uplifting feel that allows Mr. Trump to say he's running on a positive message, while still offering his fervent supporters a negative image of Mrs. Clinton.

Changing channels ...

Famous Faces

One by one, they chide and jest, smirk and implore: This election is the most important one of our lifetime. Seeking to poke fun at the corny, overtly sincere, celebrity-packed political commercial, everyone from Robert Downey Jr. and Leslie Odom Jr. to Scarlett Johansson and Neil Patrick Harris appear in a new digital ad from Save the Day PAC, a pro-Clinton group founded by the director Joss Whedon. It begins like a typical nonpartisan appeal to civic duty, before Don Cheadle reveals the ad's true intent: an effort to stop "a racist, abusive coward who could permanently damage the fabric of our society." It also includes a few non-famous people to, as the ad acknowledges, balance the celebrity endorsement of Mrs. Clinton with "real people." The joke ends by promising a nude scene from the actor Mark Ruffalo if viewers vote against Mr. Trump.

Third in a Series

The Clinton campaign has chosen a unique motif for some of its more powerful ads attacking Mr. Trump: They simply show some of his more caustic comments, along with those whom the candidate mocked or denigrated watching the insults. In the latest iteration, titled " Mirrors," young girls look at themselves in the mirror, or on a smartphone camera, as the misogynist comments from Mr. Trump soundtrack the ad. "A person who is flat-chested is very hard to be a 10," Mr. Trump is heard saying. The ad concludes with a question, asked in white text on a black background, set to soft piano music: "Is this the president we want for our daughters?"

Earshot

When a candidate has a name like Evan Bayh (pronounced BYE), the political puns write themselves. The first to take advantage of this homonym this election cycle: the National Rifle Association. Trying to make Mr. Bayh appear extremely anti-gun in his bid for a Senate seat from Indiana, the ad notes Mr. Bayh's previous support for gun control measures before concluding: "If Evan Bayh wins in Indiana, you can kiss your gun rights Bayh-Bayh."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A24 of the New York edition with the headline: Positive Message, and a Subtle Dig. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump's 'Movement' Ad: Positive Message, Subtle Dig

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ad of the Week Cheering crowds and Trump-branded skyscrapers mark a new ad from Donald J. Trump's campaign, titled " Movement," its first commercial of the general election that is uplifting in tone.

# data[].attributes.body
This flyer talks about how she is ready to be president and that it is the most "demanding" job in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
This editorial cartoon talks about how even after they have a gun control law, criminals will be able to get guns.