Wikileaks Attacking during an Election

[Revoltingest]

My apologies.
I did not mean it make it sound as though I was taking a side.

I am merely pointing out two things:

1. Wikileaks does not have every email ever sent
   1. Thus they are limited to releasing that which they actually have
2. Wikileaks, just like every other source of information, has its own agenda
   1. so if they have dirt that hurts said agenda, they will not release it

Very clear.
And reasonable.
Now, start fighting so we don't bore people!

 

[idav]

She didn't want the public to know about her classified top secret chocolate chip cookie recipe perhaps?

Or perhaps she just wanted to keep private and work emails separate which is why she didn't use it for classified material and her daughter had an account.

 

[idav]

Yeah, what evidence do you have by which to conclude that Wikileak's releases are true and accurate?

The million dollar question. Why anyone is supposed to trust bias espionage. It might be more believable if we were seeing both sides trashed otherwise it looks like a smear campaign. We are supposed to trust criminals for digital data authenticity?

 

[Revoltingest]

The million dollar question. Why anyone is supposed to trust bias espionage. It might be more believable if we were seeing both sides trashed otherwise it looks like a smear campaign. We are supposed to trust criminals for digital data authenticity?

If the released emails were bogus, we'd expect to see claims of this.
It could be both a smear campaign, & accurate.

 

[idav]

If the released emails were bogus, we'd expect to see claims of this.
It could be both a smear campaign, & accurate.

Just saying makes is seem unreliable because of it being partisan, almost as if they just want someone particular to lose.

 

[idav]

What evidence do I have that Wikileaks is right?

Do you think Watergate was right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Just saying makes is seem unreliable because of it being partisan, almost as if they just want someone particular to lose.

Bias doesn't mean they lack cromulence.
Politifact is biased, but I find merit there.

 

[james bond]

Do you think Watergate was right?

Of course not. Do you think that Nixon should've gone to prison? He didn't serve day one and was pardoned by Ford after people forgot about it. Others in his administration did a few months of jail time. Lesser people get convicted of passing classified information and get years. Do you think it's right that lesser people get convicted of crimes like this and go to prison for years while the wealthy and powerful get away with it? What I hate is a double standard.

 

[Lighthouse]

Or perhaps she just wanted to keep private and work emails separate which is why she didn't use it for classified material and her daughter had an account.

Perhaps.

According to the report released, she did use it for classified material.

 

[james bond]

Yeah, what evidence do you have by which to conclude that Wikileak's releases are true and accurate?

This is too simple. Any boob can figure out how to validate the emails. I'll tell you after Hillary Clinton gets arrested ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Finally, some justice. CNN is the top news network now. I hope they can keep the news fair and balanced.

Damage Control: CNN Chief Jeff Zucker Slams Donna Brazile, Clinton Campaign’s Debate Cheat
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...sting-secret-collusion-with-clinton-campaign/

 

[idav]

Perhaps.

According to the report released, she did use it for classified material.

They were not classified as such at the time. IOW the reclassification would have happened regardless of which server she used.

 

[McBell]

This is too simple. Any boob can figure out how to validate the emails. I'll tell you after Hillary Clinton gets arrested ha ha.

What is your plan when it is found out that it is all nothing more than Wikileaks leading you around by the nose?
What are you going to tell everyone then?

 

[james bond]

What is your plan when it is found out that it is all nothing more than Wikileaks leading you around by the nose?
What are you going to tell everyone then?

Brother, you need to get out and live a little. Have you been watching the news? Not just Wikileaks. The FBI dirt on Hillary Clinton is all over the media. New pay-for-play evidence.

Price of gold is up again and keeps going up. People are scared. Especially the establishment.
http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html

"The Hillary/Bill fortune — generated by pay-for-play influence peddling on the proposition that Bill would return to the White House under Hillary’s aegis and reward friends while punishing enemies — hit a reported $150 million some time ago, a fortune built not on farming, mining, insurance, finance, high-tech, or manufacturing, but on skimming off money. The Clintons are simply grifters whose insider access to government gave them the power to make rich people richer. Long gone was the Scrooge-like need to write off used underwear as charitable tax deductions or to play 4-trillion-to-one odds in rigging a $100,000 cattle-futures profit on a $1,000 “investment,” or Hillary’s decade-and-a-half as a corporate lawyer masquerading as a children’s advocate. How pathetic the minor league Whitewater cons must seem now to the multimillionaire Clintons — such a tawdry ancient example of amateurish shakedowns when compared with the sophistication of real profiteering through the humanitarian-sounding, high-brow, corrupt Clinton Foundation. So the Clintons finally got their millions and what such millions can ensure for their separate lifestyles. They have at last beautiful gated estates, tasteful and secluded from hoi polloi, light years away from Arkansas and the Rose Law Firm. Progressive Chelsea married a multimillionaire hedge-fund operator whose father served five years in federal prison for bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Her parents’ profiteering can allow Chelsea to announce, perhaps even sincerely, that she is not interested in money. Why should she be, given her own reported $15 million net worth from maternal spin-off favors? She lives in a $10 million Manhattan residence, so her parents had no motivation to get more in order to “provide” for their offspring. Instead, was bringing Chelsea down to Bill and Hillary’s level as a Foundation fixer a way to leave her a post mortem primer on how to get even richer? In sum, there was certainly no need for Hillary to even have considered flying to the Moroccan autocracy on the eve of announcing her presidential candida to leverage a $12 million speaking “fee” from a cut-throat Moroccan mining company, Why the drive to pile profits on top of profits on top of profits? Or, as Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, put it of the quid pro quo fee (i.e., the mining company felt that it had gotten from the Clinton-run State Department a U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank loan of $92 million): This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. Translated: A President Hillary Clinton would probably have no regret that dozens of heads of state, the majority of them dictatorial and not especially friendly to the U.S., would feel that they had done business with Hillary and Bill — and she, as a recipient of their largess, would owe them commensurate attention."

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlessly

FBI releases documents on Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of financier Rich
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...bill-clintons-2001-pardon-financier-rich.html

Financial markets jolted as US election polls tighten
Wall Street ‘fear gauge’ jumps as investors rethink long-held bets on Clinton victory
https://www.ft.com/content/8a6e52be-a054-11e6-86d5-4e36b35c3550

 

[McBell]

Brother, you need to get out and live a little. Have you been watching the news? Not just Wikileaks. The FBI dirt on Hillary Clinton is all over the media. New pay-for-play evidence.

Price of gold is up again and keeps going up. People are scared. Especially the establishment.
http://www.kitco.com/charts/livegold.html

"The Hillary/Bill fortune — generated by pay-for-play influence peddling on the proposition that Bill would return to the White House under Hillary’s aegis and reward friends while punishing enemies — hit a reported $150 million some time ago, a fortune built not on farming, mining, insurance, finance, high-tech, or manufacturing, but on skimming off money. The Clintons are simply grifters whose insider access to government gave them the power to make rich people richer. Long gone was the Scrooge-like need to write off used underwear as charitable tax deductions or to play 4-trillion-to-one odds in rigging a $100,000 cattle-futures profit on a $1,000 “investment,” or Hillary’s decade-and-a-half as a corporate lawyer masquerading as a children’s advocate. How pathetic the minor league Whitewater cons must seem now to the multimillionaire Clintons — such a tawdry ancient example of amateurish shakedowns when compared with the sophistication of real profiteering through the humanitarian-sounding, high-brow, corrupt Clinton Foundation. So the Clintons finally got their millions and what such millions can ensure for their separate lifestyles. They have at last beautiful gated estates, tasteful and secluded from hoi polloi, light years away from Arkansas and the Rose Law Firm. Progressive Chelsea married a multimillionaire hedge-fund operator whose father served five years in federal prison for bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. Her parents’ profiteering can allow Chelsea to announce, perhaps even sincerely, that she is not interested in money. Why should she be, given her own reported $15 million net worth from maternal spin-off favors? She lives in a $10 million Manhattan residence, so her parents had no motivation to get more in order to “provide” for their offspring. Instead, was bringing Chelsea down to Bill and Hillary’s level as a Foundation fixer a way to leave her a post mortem primer on how to get even richer? In sum, there was certainly no need for Hillary to even have considered flying to the Moroccan autocracy on the eve of announcing her presidential candida to leverage a $12 million speaking “fee” from a cut-throat Moroccan mining company, Why the drive to pile profits on top of profits on top of profits? Or, as Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin, put it of the quid pro quo fee (i.e., the mining company felt that it had gotten from the Clinton-run State Department a U.S.-financed Export-Import Bank loan of $92 million): This was HRC’s idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request. Translated: A President Hillary Clinton would probably have no regret that dozens of heads of state, the majority of them dictatorial and not especially friendly to the U.S., would feel that they had done business with Hillary and Bill — and she, as a recipient of their largess, would owe them commensurate attention."

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ton-greed-corruption-power-cynicism-endlessly

FBI releases documents on Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of financier Rich
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...bill-clintons-2001-pardon-financier-rich.html

Financial markets jolted as US election polls tighten
Wall Street ‘fear gauge’ jumps as investors rethink long-held bets on Clinton victory
https://www.ft.com/content/8a6e52be-a054-11e6-86d5-4e36b35c3550

Interesting that you forgot to answer the questions...

 

[idav]

New pay-for-play evidence.

In your opinion what is wrong with the pay for play thing? Someone is writing off to a foundation for a speech from a famous person. Would it be any worse than paying a celebrity to come to your party?

 

[Lighthouse]

In your opinion what is wrong with the pay for play thing? Someone is writing off to a foundation for a speech from a famous person. Would it be any worse than paying a celebrity to come to your party?

How guillable and naive, in your opinion, does someone have to be to actually believe people are paying that kind of money just to hear Hillary Clinton speak?

 

[McBell]

How guillable and naive, in your opinion, does someone have to be to actually believe people are paying that kind of money just to hear Hillary Clinton speak?

Perhaps you would like to give it a shot?
How about it?
You up for giving an actual response?

In your opinion what is wrong with the pay for play thing? Someone is writing off to a foundation for a speech from a famous person. Would it be any worse than paying a celebrity to come to your party?

 

[Acim]

It seems you already demonstrated your unwillingness to address the facts of Trump's history of destroying emails, records and documents in defiance of court orders. The alternative reality is just too comforting, isn't it?

I did address it by calling it LW propaganda.

 

[james bond]

Interesting that you forgot to answer the questions...

You're still stuck on Wikileaks? That's for the media. The FBI evidence is for the Clintons' trial.

If you need more. I suppose the answer is a Trump victory, prison for both Hillary and Bill Clinton for tax evasion and other charges and then forever in hell. I'll ice the champagne down on election day.