Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
wareyin said:
Again, how would Abedin sending a classified email to Weiner or Abedin downloading a classified email onto Weiner's laptop be counted as "Hillary's carelessness?" Please explain.
Click to expand...

Carelessness could be from clearly classified emails or documents that came through her server and were NOT known to the original investigation.
How many is enough to raise concern?
I'm sure 1 or 2 aren't enough. Perhaps a few dozen Top Secret would do, with obvious key words.
If it was just more of the same though I don 't think we would have heard about it.

We see Comey's letter and the White House officially defending Comey as a man of principle. Strange isn't it? The White House is playing it safe, defending him but then acting annoyed. To me, it seems they are posturing for history, knowing what is coming.

Maybe they have nothing significant. It's possible that field agents tried to work quietly on the case before realizing that accessing files based on the previous agreement with Huma or the new warrant for Weiner may not cover their scope, and a new one was needed. The letter then, was to fend of speculation about the additional warrant before it even started.

Remember that Huma not only worked for State, she also had roles in the Foundation and Teneo. Also note that Weiner is a sneaky bastard who was politically castrated and might like the illusion of power -holding onto his wife's classified documents and contacts.
So when she says she doesnt know how they got on his computer, I think she is telling the truth!
 
The Big Dog said:
Hmmm, he did not feel like he was wasting his time when he posted that comment about me, I am sure he will share a few seconds of his time to explain it.

Thanks, tho, for "checking" in.
Click to expand...

Just because he told you doesn't mean he has a lifetime to explain it.
 
Sherkeu said:
Carelessness could be from clearly classified emails or documents that came through her server and were NOT known to the original investigation.
How many is enough to raise concern?
I'm sure 1 or 2 aren't enough. Perhaps a few dozen Top Secret would do, with obvious key words.
If it was just more of the same though I don 't think we would have heard about it.

We see Comey's letter and the White House officially defending Comey as a man of principle. Strange isn't it? The White House is playing it safe, defending him but then acting annoyed. To me, it seems they are posturing for history, knowing what is coming.

Maybe they have nothing significant. It's possible that field agents tried to work quietly on the case before realizing that accessing files based on the previous agreement with Huma or the new warrant for Weiner may not cover their scope, and a new one was needed. The letter then, was to fend of speculation about the additional warrant before it even started.

Remember that Huma not only worked for State, she also had roles in the Foundation and Teneo. Also note that Weiner is a sneaky bastard who was politically castrated and might like the illusion of power -holding onto his wife's classified documents and contacts.
So when she says she doesnt know how they got on his computer, I think she is telling the truth!
Click to expand...

That story sure spun itself out. One hell of a lot of speculation. There is no reason to think Mr. Dick pic was doing any of that.
 
Last edited:
Megalodon said:
I see, you are not aware of how ridiculous your sources (or your dismissal of othets's sources) actually are. A real case study...
Click to expand...

Oh dear....

A ridiculous misrepresentation of yer argument is not a strawman because yer arguments are ridiculous!

Fantastic!
 
The Big Dog said:
Lolz, I bet none of your skeptical pals are going to point out what a pathetic strawman this is.

Think progress/media matters actual propaganda outfits
Click to expand...

Not a strawman. What with your posting style displaying illusory superiority, and constantly mocking people for actually being skeptical of your links and sources..

You've shown no signs of skeptical thought, though to be fair, you haven't actually claimed to be a skeptic. However, the fact that you 'mock' skeptics for not flat out accepting your claims?

My mocking of your posting style is valid. If you want an actual discussion, you might want to ditch the superiority as well as the thinly veiled insults.

I suspect all you seem to want to post is 'LOLZ! Facepalm! Are there no 'skeptics' that will accept my links and claims as absolutely true?'
 
Shalamar said:
Not a strawman. What with your posting style displaying illusory superiority, and constantly mocking people for actually being skeptical of your links and sources..

You've shown no signs of skeptical thought, though to be fair, you haven't actually claimed to be a skeptic. However, the fact that you 'mock' skeptics for not flat out accepting your claims?

My mocking of your posting style is valid. If you want an actual discussion, you might want to ditch the superiority as well as the thinly veiled insults.

I suspect all you seem to want to post is 'LOLZ! Facepalm! Are there no 'skeptics' that will accept my links and claims as absolutely true?'
Click to expand...

Say, all that "mocking" you are doing?

You kinda forgot to try to address the fact that media matters and think progress are actual propaganda outfits.

Illusory superiority? You are half right.

Drops mic
 
Argumemnon said:
You know, if you guys actually get Trump and he breaks your democracy, don't come crying to us up north.
Click to expand...

Dont blame us for CE. He she or it is not our product or problem. CE actually posts material with the explicit intention of ****-stirring America for unknown purpose.
 
The Big Dog said:
Say, all that "mocking" you are doing?

You kinda forgot to try to address the fact that media matters and think progress are actual propaganda outfits.

Illusory superiority? You are half right.

Drops mic
Click to expand...

Careful you don't trip over that mic. Because if you want to discuss it, feel free to point out how they are propaganda outfits. Just declaring them propaganda outfits doesn't cut it. Nor does your illusory superiority. Because it is illusory.

Lolz facepalm drops mic.
 
Oh, the new BOOM headshot. It's hard to keep up with what emotional self-declaration of victory substituted for an actual argument is in at the moment.
 
tyr_13 said:
Oh, the new BOOM headshot. It's hard to keep up with what emotional self-declaration of victory substituted for an actual argument is in at the moment.
Click to expand...

Well, we could always take TBD's 'argument' and declare that his sources are mere propaganda sites, which makes it true by his standards.
 
Steve said:
No!!! No it is not! It is still the frozen north!! Stay away. You would hate it here!!! (also, all our politicians are liberals, even the conservatives :eek:)
Click to expand...

On a serious note, back in the 60's I took preliminary steps to obtaining "landed immigrant status" to avoid the US draft. Met with folks at McGill University in Montreal to see what the process involved. Mainly needed to get a "job promise offer".

Turned out I got a draft lottery number in the 300's, and that was that.

So, I could be a Canadian today but for the vagaries of fate, eh?
 
Last edited:
Shalamar said:
Careful you don't trip over that mic. Because if you want to discuss it, feel free to point out how they are propaganda outfits. Just declaring them propaganda outfits doesn't cut it. Nor does your illusory superiority. Because it is illusory.

Lolz facepalm drops mic.
Click to expand...

Wait, you don't want to repeatedly post about me? You want to talk about something substantive? I'll be damned.

I already pointed out the think progress is run by someone who sits on Clinton's transition team. She has also been a star of the wikileaks releases of the Podesta emails directly coordinating messenging with the campaign.

Next, who runs media matters? Protip, he also runs correct the record super pac. Flex those skeptic muscles!
 
The Big Dog said:
Wait, you don't want to repeatedly post about me? You want to talk about something substantive? I'll be damned.

I already pointed out the think progress is run by someone who sits on Clinton's transition team. She has also been a star of the wikileaks releases of the Podesta emails directly coordinating messenging with the campaign.

Next, who runs media matters? Protip, he also runs correct the record super pac. Flex those skeptic muscles!
Click to expand...

You had me until the false 'protip' and the veiled insult. Cut it out.

As for the rest. How does that invalidate the stories and the information? Are they biased, indeed they are. But they're no more, or less biased than the constant flow of 'information' you've been posting.

Perhaps you should flex those 'skeptic' muscles of your own in regards to your own links, and stories?

Your claim. Back it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom