Pretty sure Bill Clinton's doodles prove Guccifer hacked into Hillary's server.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Oh well what will you say two weeks from now? The story originated with CNN because that is the media outlet the state dept chose to give it to. Yes the others repeat it but one gives an outline to attribution of the story and it's origin vs some source close to the investigation. When they say official U.S. sources it's saying it came from a more reliable source. Those stories all had a different emphasis to portray. Guess you just couldn't tell.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

PS. It is over.


www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: stinkelbaum

There are going to be some disappointed people when it turns out the con had nothing but smoke up his Ass to offer.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Stumbled how jaded? They shared the server and????? What? It's over babe. They didn't see what y'all seem to think is there. She's going to be exonerated then she's going to soar to the Whitehouse on the fake tanned shoulders of the doofus trump.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I hope you don't take it personally. If you make one mistake, and even admit it, they dog pile as quick as they can to bombard you with condescending posts about honesty and integrity. Yet when they are caught red-handed over and over, their honest and integrity seems to dissipate as they scramble to cover their own asses.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Did you miss the first sentence of the source you posted?

If you’ve spent any time inside the conservative information bubble, among the things you know is that not only did Hillary Clinton commit all manner of nefarious crimes with relation to the emails she sent and received as Secretary of State

But, notice that the article is "opinion". So, the entire article means nothing official.

a reply to: introvert

Hah. Hardly.
There really is no point in arguing with people who will never see common sense or accept facts.
Not taking the bait is not the same as "scrambling".

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Stumbled how jaded? They shared the server and????? What? It's over babe. They didn't see what y'all seem to think is there. She's going to be exonerated then she's going to soar to the Whitehouse on the fake tanned shoulders of the doofus trump.

Ok, now I've finally put 2 and 2 together. You've crowed on other threads how you are financially secure enough that you've retired. You are, without a doubt, a paid Hillary shill. Her PAC definitely has made it worth your while to regurgitate enough pro-Hillary bs that you yourself don't even believe. You can still present a polished turd even she has lost state after state to a 74 year old socialist she can't even dispatch with, and here Trump, not even a politician, rolled over a field of sixteen younger career politicians. I must admit, you're good, to be able to constantly paint a shiny, happy, portrait of your girl despite everything to the contrary.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Sillyolme

I hope you don't take it personally. If you make one mistake, and even admit it, they dog pile as quick as they can to bombard you with condescending posts about honesty and integrity. Yet when they are caught red-handed over and over, their honest and integrity seems to dissipate as they scramble to cover their own asses.

Wow...best example of the pot calling the kettle black I have ever seen.... this is award worthy material right here folks!!


Darn,,,, guess that shoe doesn't fit so well when it is on your own foot.


"they dog pile as quick as they can to bombard you with condescending posts about honesty and integrity."

Yeah I hate when they do that and claim stupid stuff.... you know telling you that you are being "intellectually dishonest".....darn those Hillary haters!!!! Burn them all!!!!


LOL LOL LOL

This post literally made my day....I haven't laughed like that in a long long time.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Sillyolme

I hope you don't take it personally. If you make one mistake, and even admit it, they dog pile as quick as they can to bombard you with condescending posts about honesty and integrity. Yet when they are caught red-handed over and over, their honest and integrity seems to dissipate as they scramble to cover their own asses.

.....darn those Hillary haters!!!! Burn them all!!!!

Yep, that's the script they all use. Case in point, Hillary sycophant Madeleine Albright, condemning them to hell. And they call Trump a bully. I guess when you bully women to vote for Hillary or else face eternal damnation isn't a bullying tactic.

Albright: 'special place in hell' for women who don't support Clinton

www.theguardian.com...

The irony is lost that is you post on a thread where there are 20 or more active posters.. and you the only person defending your point... 19 people to you..it becomes....

OMG they are ganging up on me...it's just not fair...where's my trophy? I can't find my safe place..... Give me a doll so I can show you where the bad man touched me.....

Good grief.

These people pretend to defend Hillary, but not a single one of them has ever started a "Why Hillary is innocent thread".... mainly because it would be a very lonely thread with about 5 posters...

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

Hah. Hardly.
There really is no point in arguing with people who will never see common sense or accept facts.
Not taking the bait is not the same as "scrambling".

I'm sure we would disagree on the definition of common sense and facts.

Either way, it is hypocritical of those that have shown to be dishonest, to lecture others on honesty.

a reply to: introvert

Are you referring to this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought that post brought up a good point.

Seriously, this thread is totally derailed. Was that the purpose? To cause distraction from the subject of the OP? Hopefully we can get back to that.

a reply to: RickinVa

I'm glad you had a laugh, Rick.

I think I am well within my right to comment on honesty and integrity. I am more than wiling to admit when I am wrong and do my best to put things in proper context.

In fact, that is where you and I happen to disagree the most on issues like this because you are intellectually dishonest and do not put things in proper context.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

Hah. Hardly.
There really is no point in arguing with people who will never see common sense or accept facts.
Not taking the bait is not the same as "scrambling".

I'm sure we would disagree on the definition of common sense and facts.

Either way, it is hypocritical of those that have shown to be dishonest, to lecture others on honesty.

"Either way, it is hypocritical of those that have shown to be dishonest, to lecture others on honesty."

Says the man proven to be dishonest time after time after time in Hillary thread after Hillary thread....Your killing me...my side are starting to hurt...

LOL LOL LOL


Who needs TV when this is available?

You still working on your theory that because Bush used a commercial RNC server and deleted 22 million emails that somehow allows Hillary a free pass on classified information on her privately owned unclassified email server?

Still telling people that other SoS's did the same thing as Hillary so it is no biggie? Nothing to worry about?

Those 22 Top Secret emails are going to magically disappear any day now..

Hillary accepting intell updates from an uncleared Clinton Foundation and passing them on to members of the SD for action...

Hillary sending a classified email to some one with no active security clearances?

Hillary having top secret emails on a server accessible by people without a clearance.

Hillary placing classified emails on a thumb drive and giving them to her lawyer

Hillary attempting to hide evidence by wiping the server

I can go on all day long.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: introvert

Are you referring to this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought that post brought up a good point.

Seriously, this thread is totally derailed. Was that the purpose? Do cause distraction from the subject of the OP? Hopefully we can get back to that.

Yes. The other member admitted that she was mistaken. It takes integrity to do so.

Why is it so rare for people to admit when they made a mistake or happen to be wrong? Perhaps a lack of honesty and integrity?

On topic:

There is a lot of context to this issue we still do not have. We cannot come to any conclusion yet and we just have to wait for the FBI to do their job.

This constant bombardment of Hillary email crap is just feed for the Right Wing nutbags and loony Bernie supporters so they can have their Two Minutes of Hate.

a reply to: RickinVa

Says the man proven to be dishonest time after time after time in Hillary thread after Hillary thread....Your killing me...my side are starting to hurt...

I've not been dishonest. You believe I'm dishonest because I don't agree with your illogical assertions.

It appears you have must be confused because disagreement is not the same as dishonesty.

a reply to: RickinVa

You still working on your theory that because Bush used a commercial RNC server and deleted 22 million emails that somehow allows Hillary a free pass on classified information on her privately owned unclassified email server?

Perfect example of being dishonest. I have never said that. What I have said is that we have precedence to look at that may indicate Hillary may not be brought-up on charges.

I can go on all day long.

I know you could. But the problem is that you have no clear and specific content to provide with those claims. You can link to media articles and quote US code/law, but without everything in proper context, it doesn't mean much. We have to have all the information and unless you are part of the investigation, you don't have that.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

Says the man proven to be dishonest time after time after time in Hillary thread after Hillary thread....Your killing me...my side are starting to hurt...

I've not been dishonest. You believe I'm dishonest because I don't agree with your illogical assertions.

It appears you have must be confused because disagreement is not the same as dishonesty.

Would you really like for me to go back through a few threads and post every single piece of false and intentionally misleading posts that you have made time after time? Won't be hard man... there are dozens of them.

Sorry man... I am not buying you "woe is me" story... you reap what you sow... and you have sowed a whole lot of it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

You still working on your theory that because Bush used a commercial RNC server and deleted 22 million emails that somehow allows Hillary a free pass on classified information on her privately owned unclassified email server?

Perfect example of being dishonest. I have never said that. What I have said is that we have precedence to look at that may indicate Hillary may not be brought-up on charges.

I can go on all day long.

I know you could. But the problem is that you have no clear and specific content to provide with those claims. You can link to media articles and quote US code/law, but without everything in proper context, it doesn't mean much. We have to have all the information and unless you are part of the investigation, you don't have that.

Do you or do you not agree that Sidney Blumenthal, a uncleared Clinton foundation employee, should not have been sending or receiving classified emails to or from Hillary Clinton via an unclassified method. And furthermore, Hillary should not have been passing not properly vetted foreign intelligence among members of the SD for action?

You have a Secretary of State attempting to influence State Department decisions by forwarding not properly vetted intelligence information from a employee of her own private foundation, which just happens to be raking in millions in donations from foreign governments affected by future SD decisions? Sounds real legit.

If you agree, then she has broken the law... it is not rocket science.

That's a real simple question.... care to answer that?