> When you have political fact-checkers actually trying to claim that Trump thought email was 'bleached' with actual bleach, by taking his entire conversation out of context, I don't blame him.

The clip that circulated was [1] from around 1:09:00, widely quoted:

And not only that, she bleached, which somebody said they never even heard of, in a very
expensive fashion, used chemical, so that nobody will ever be able to see 'em.

You are claiming that this is out-of-context. It is not. Here is the surrounding context:

But the only way to learn the full depth of her public corruption is to read the 33,000 emails
that she deleted. They're gone. (Pause for the audience to chant "Lock Her Up.") It's very sad.
And not only deleted, folks. This was after, this was after she was subpoena'ed by Congress to
produce. And not only that, she bleached, which somebody said they never even heard of, in a
very expensive fashion, used chemical, so that nobody will ever be able to see 'em. Who does
this? Who does this? Hillary Clinton said under oath that she turned over all of her
work-related emails. But we now know that is just one more Clinton lie. The FBI found thousands
of work-related emails she never turned over, and then another 15,000 emails were just
discovered a few weeks ago. Now today another 30 emails were discovered by the State Department
that Hillary Clinton failed to turn over. These were emails about Benghazi.

As you can see, it is not preceded or followed by any statements of "I mean, they weren't chemicals, it was just a program that happened to have the word "bleach" in its name, and also it's not professional security software like Eraser; it's amateurish software for freeing up space on your computer." In fact he seems to be saying not only that a chemical was used on the server, but also that he asked one of his aides and they said that they were surprised that you could/would erase a hard drive with actual bleach. He even bolsters it with a lie to say that the process is "very expensive" rather than saying "yeah, it's basically just downloading a program and running it on your desktop."

In further interviews he has repeated the phrase "acid washing" for this downloading-a-free-space-cleaner-upper-act, and repeated that it was expensive. [2] The same source apparently followed-up with the campaign:

His campaign told us Trump didn’t literally mean that Clinton “acid washed” her emails. It
said that he was using a play on words, referring to Clinton’s joke a year ago about “wiping”
her server with a cloth.

Sorry, we don’t get the play on words, which was not clear in any of Trump’s remarks. Let’s
look at the facts.

That excuse is one hell of a whopper; as the article notes, nobody can reasonably take this stuff as "wordplay." It's intentional misinformation; he is trying to mislead his own supporters to think that the unrecoverable emails contain some secrets so potent that post-subpoena, Hillary said "We have to brick this computer so bad the FBI can't recover anything out of it." He's not trying to lead them to the idea of "oh, there was a subpoena, and then there were some emails that were no longer on the email server but had instead been downloaded to a personal computer just the way POP3 works by default for most people, but then they couldn't be recovered from that PC because some fool had run a 'disk space freer-upper' in the interim, not realizing that it was deleting these emails."

> The media is clearly biased and working with the DNC to destroy all of their political enemies. This is corruption at the national-level needs to be stopped.

I mean, no. It's not "clearly" biased. If it's biased it's much more subtle. Like, Trump's video where he brags that he sexually assaults women and gets away with it because he's famous, came concurrently with the Podesta hack. CNN actually discussed a suicidal episode that a major Clinton Foundation employee had, simply because it was in the Podesta hack, even though it has nothing to do with Hillary's present campaign and happened 5 years ago. The media's bias seems to be whatever's salacious, not to whatever's liberal.

> The problem is that if you accuse any Mulim of anything in this country (when you have evidence or a good reason), you are called an 'Islamaphobe'..mostly because of PC culture.

Has this happened to you personally, or are you guessing? I was at a friend's apartment and he complained publicly -- with several witnesses -- about how the Muslims at the apartment across the way seemed to often be staring into his house and it made him pretty scared and he would usually get so creeped out that he would go into another room. Nobody accused him at the time of being Islamophobic, even though this is a literal fear-of-the-Muslims moment, we were all like "ooh, that's weird, I wonder what they're creeping around for." It was only after looking up what direction Mecca is in the US Midwest that we found out that this was part of their normal prayer, and now he's not scared anymore. (We actually had prematurely rejected this explanation; we were confused because his apartment is NE of their apartment, but Mecca is SE of Kansas City on a map. The issue is that they have to pray along the Great Circle route to Mecca and we're so far away from it that this actually points NE.)

> They are allowed to protest...and resign. just like BLM. Why is this wrong?

Nobody said they weren't entitled to; but why this is wrong is answered in the following sentence, "Part of what’s disturbing about both Kansas City incidents is the extent to which they illustrate the gap that has opened between police and the communities in which they work—a divide that, with horrifying regularity, produces far more disastrous and violent results in our inner cities."

Like, it makes sense for "Black Lives Matter" to trigger a resignation of some off-duty cops; you can make a tenuous case that the phrase "Black Lives Matter", even if the library wasn't intending to support it, supports a specific anti-police movement in the US. Like, I don't think that's correct but I think a police officer might reasonably believe it. But a display encouraging the reading of "books about black lives" should not be so offensive to an officer of a multiracial community that it nevertheless causes them to resign a job in a huff. If it does then it points to a serious discrepancy between the officer and the community they're policing, and if it's a systematic discrepancy then that's scary for the library itself, which presumably doesn't want to be targeted merely because they encourage people to read books about people of minority races.

> There are many Americans that choose not to go to the library. How is this the fault of the system?

I don't think the quote you quoted means whatever you think it means. o_O.

> You can't welcome an 'open and honest' discussion and then when someone discusses something that offends you, call them out as a 'racist', 'sexist', or 'islamaphobe'.

I mean, you can. You probably shouldn't, but you can; that can certainly be an open and honest reaction to various things that deserve it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWRrmAmi5AM
[2] http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-facts...