1)RE “I’ve seen these complaints before but never has there been any documentation that these supposed “bros” exist.”

You were just given five links (sublinks within those too) where dozens of people talk about it — including writers who regularly appear on TV. Yet you deny it — this is called willful ignorance. Some find said “willful ignorance” comforting — what can one do when people ignore the evidence before them? : )

2) RE “It is documented that the Clinton campaign pays trolls to harass people online.”

I cited the New York Times, Slate, the Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan and the Los Angeles Times … what are your “sources”? Do remember — when presented with actual news organization like I gave, personal blogs do not suffice in a counter argument. Do your best.

3) RE “The Clinton campaign has been completely discredited with proof that voter files have been tampered with, the Clintons have broken the law by politicking at polling stations and they are paying trolls to attack people on social media. These items are documented.”

What are your sources on voter tampering, broken laws and paid trolls? Given such “dramatic” charges, you should have no problem citing respectable news organizations/articles with specific (a) proof (b) information and (c) facts . No one cares about Bill with a bullhorn … so do your best to actually make a case on these serious charges. And Clinton hit sites (blogs citing personal opinion) do not count. Until then, your argument is laughable and couldn’t get a hearing in Kangaroo Court.