Hillary Clinton email scandal

Amazingfun

Overheal wrote: »

There are some suspicions his energy comes from cocaine. He has been known to throw parties littered with the stuff after all.

No one except Hillary shills say that.
Trump is well known to be a sober man, and has been all his life.

Hillary's alleged drinking problem is a "suspicion" by many, however, even her own aides, lol:

Hillary Clinton campaign aides had a frantic email exchange in August 2015 over who should call the candidate to “sober her up some” at around 4:30 in the afternoon.

According to documents published by WikiLeaks, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta emailed communications aide Jennifer Palmieri with a question at around 2:00 p.m. “Should I call her and talk this through or better to leave with you?” Podesta wrote. “I’m worried she’ll get on with Cheryl [Mills] and we’ll end up in a bad place.”

Palmieri wrote back more than two hours later with a response: “I think you should call her and sober her up some.”

https://heatst.com/politics/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-sober/

26000 Elephants

Amazingfun wrote: »

Reminder: The Clinton Foundation is still under FBI Investigation

I'm trying to come up with a word to describe the scale of butthurt that Andrew Breibart is feeling right now. 'Searing' and 'Tropic' are early favourites,

As for the 'pending indictments' on the Clinton foundation investigation - even the fox news idiot who reported it has admitted it was completely bogus.

Baier apologises for lying

Please keep up, AmazingFun.

edit: ( he also apologized for the "5 foreign powers hacked her email" claim you mentioned earlier...)

Amazingfun

Andrew Breitbart is dead, so he isn't "feeling" much of anything I'd guess.
But he sure knew what John Podesta is:

And I have not mentioned nor cited Bret Baier anywhere at all.

It's clear by now you have a curious fondness for sneering and condescension, but at least try and tell the truth as you engage in it

Ps: H I G H E N E R G Y :

The fourth Trump rally of the day is taking place in the fourth state visited today, LIVE in Moon Township Pennsylvania NOW:

Amazingfun

Wikileaks has just released a new batch of emails:

@wikileaks
RELEASE: 8263 new emails from the DNC #DNCLeak2 #feelthebern #imwithher #demexit

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?q=%40releasedate+%222016-11-07%22&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=0#searchresult

Overheal

Amazingfun wrote: »

Wikileaks has just released a new batch of emails:

I can wait for reddit to parse them. I grabbed one on the last page - there are a lot that just seem to be automated updates about the Trump University trial for instance. In other words, there's probably a lot of 'gibberish' in this dump in that it doesn't pertain to anything remotely interesting from a voyeurism sense. A lot for example is just the day to day itinerary of Debbie Wasserman Schulz.

I liked the language in this one though, it will have partisans chomping at the bit for no reasons at all..

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/42684

From: Banfill, Ryan [mailto:BanfillR@dnc.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:04 PM
To: Joynt, Carol (NBCUniversal)
Cc: Manriquez, Pablo
Subject: Address

Hi Carol,

I'm Ryan Banfill from DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz's office. I have a couple of questions in advance of booking the chair on the show. What time will the hit occur? Do you provide makeup? What is your street address? Is it 4001 Nebraska Ave, NW?

Thanks,

Ryan

Obviously a plot to KILL SOMEONE. :rolleyes:

Christy42

Amazingfun wrote: »

Wikileaks has just released a new batch of emails:

And yet no comment. Is there even anything of mild interest in this batch?

I can't imagine there is. I mean voting has already started and voter apathy about these things must have set in. All of which wikileaks should have known before hand. This means they are likely to have released anything decent they had long before now.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

And yet no comment. Is there even anything of mild interest in this batch?

I can't imagine there is. I mean voting has already started and voter apathy about these things must have set in. All of which wikileaks should have known before hand. This means they are likely to have released anything decent they had long before now.

That the Democratic National Committee colluded with CNN in devising questions in April to be asked of then-Republican primary candidate Donald Trump in an upcoming interview, mild interest?

That a Washington Post writer asked the DNC for Anti-Trump research, mild interest?

That DoJ Assistant Attorney Peter Kadzik is outed as a mole for the Hillary Clinton campaign, mild interest?

That Hillary directed her maid to print out classified materials, mild interest?

That, in a long list of lies from Hillary, emails sent to daughter Chelsea weren’t all about yoga and weddings, but also State Department information deemed classified, mild interest?

That’s a lot of interest from someone who should never be let near the White House ever, again.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-dnc-and-cnn-colluded-on-questions-for-trump-cruz/article/2606651

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/wikileaks-show-washington-post-writer-asked-dnc-for-anti-trump-research/

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793831278382428164

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/05/confirmed-hillarys-emails-chelsea-werent-yoga-weddings/

Overheal

Did the maid work for the KGB?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Did the maid work for the KGB?

Perhaps a more valid question to ask would be "Did the maid have proper security clearances in order to handle classified materials?" What do you think?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps a more valid question to ask would be "Did the maid have proper security clearances in order to handle classified materials?" What do you think?

I await the DOJ to make that determination.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I await the DOJ to make that determination.

You honestly think the DOJ would give a maid security clearances to handle classified and top secret information, even Congress can't get? Really? Really? Oh, wait... never mind. You're voting for Hillary.

Amerika

Jennifer Palmieri, Hillary’s campaign spokesperson said: If ‘whopper’ email is published by WikiLeaks in next 2 days, ‘it’s probably a fake’.

Probably?

Preemptive action from a serial liar? What are they worried about? I think the real question we should be asking at the moment... What do they know might be coming out that we don’t?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You honestly thing the DOJ would give a maid security clearances to handle classified and top secret information, even Congress can't get? Really? Really? Oh, wait... never mind. You're voting for Hillary.

I am?! News to me.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

You honestly thing the DOJ would give a maid security clearances to handle classified and top secret information, even Congress can't get? Really? Really? Oh, wait... never mind. You're voting for Hillary.

You've missed the point entirely. As has been said, let the DOJ make the determination.

Oh wait, never mind. You're voting Trump.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I am?! News to me.

You're not, or didn't?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

You're not, or didn't?

No. I thought you read this thread occasionally?

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You've missed the point entirely. As has been said, let the DOJ make the determination.

Oh wait, never mind. You're voting Trump.

I’m missing the point? What, that nobody in their right mind would think the US government would give a maid the highest security clearances in order to handle Classified and Top Security information? If that is the standard for voting for Trump, everybody should be voting for Trump.

Overheal

Common sense (and computer science) weighs in on how the FBI could have possibly, magically, gone through 650,000 emails (just read this in Limbaughs voice you can hear the moment his blood begins to curdle)

http://www.mediaite.com/online/edward-snowden-smacks-trumps-claim-comey-couldnt-review-clintons-emails-in-8-days/

Robert Shaw [FB]: As a Software Engineer who specializes in the Microsoft Stack, I can assure you that going through 650k emails can be done in hours or even minutes. This would sort them into a very large pile you can ignore and a very small pile humans to look at. The fact it took them 11 days means that they were VERY thorough or just VERY SLOW.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

No. I thought you read this thread occasionally?

Must have missed it. Who did, or are you going to plan on voting for?

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

That, in a long list of lies from Hillary, emails sent to daughter Chelsea weren’t all about yoga and weddings, but also State Department information deemed classified, mild interest?

The message you refer to was not classified in any way when it was sent. Again, no story here. Just hot air.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Must have missed it. Who did, or are you going to plan on voting for?

Well since write-ins aren't permitted in SC and I can't vote for Bernie Sanders or Vermin Supreme I figured I would go with McMullin since Johnson's candidacy is not very far from a complete and utter joke and Jill Stein is a treeperson who seems like one or several chakra beads short of a necklace. Or if given the option I leave the POTUS field blank and do my local picks and I'm inclined to vote for the Dem challenger in my district because when I went to the Republican's website he was auctioning off tickets to Inauguration day in DC, and that was last month, the assumption on his part being he already had won and fcuk democracy.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

The message you refer to was not classified in any way when it was sent. Again, no story here. Just hot air.

“Revisions to the Iran points” was the subject line of a classified April 2012 e-mail to Clinton from Hanley. In it, the text reads, “Marina is trying to print for you.”

A classified e-mail marked “confidential,” which is the tier below “secret” or “top secret.” Perhaps they should let us all know what was in it, if there is nothing to see here. Right?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/report_hillarys_maid_had_access_to_topsecret_documents.html

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Well since write-ins aren't permitted in SC and I can't vote for Bernie Sanders or Vermin Supreme I figured I would go with McMullin since Johnson's candidacy is not very far from a complete and utter joke and Jill Stein is a treeperson who seems like one or several chakra beads short of a necklace. Or if given the option I leave the POTUS field blank and do my local picks and I'm inclined to vote for the Dem challenger in my district because when I went to the Republican's website he was auctioning off tickets to Inauguration day in DC, and that was last month, the assumption on his part being he already had won and fcuk democracy.

McMullin, really? Good for you. I raise my gun to you in your honor.

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

I’m missing the point?

Yes, you have.

What, that nobody in their right mind would think the US government would give a maid the highest security clearances in order to handle Classified and Top Security information?

Thats not what its about.

If that is the standard for voting for Trump, everybody should be voting for Trump.

No, but if you like to dispense with niceties like a free press, due process, and political opposition, then you should vote for Trump.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

McMullin, really? Good for you. I raise my gun to you in your honor.

https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues

No worries, he's a sane conservative the only thing I find disagreeable is a pro-life stance which concerns me given the number of crazy ass laws that have been passed around the country: like in Texas I think it was, requiring that clinics be surgically certified even if they only administered abortions by pill or whatever. Beyond that issue everything else he's at is normal conservative though I wish fiscal responsibility/balanced budget was a bigger issue for him.

Amerika

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Thats not what its about.

So... What is it about then?

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

No worries, he's a sane conservative the only thing I find disagreeable is a pro-life stance which concerns me given the number of crazy ass laws that have been passed around the country: like in Texas I think it was, requiring that clinics be surgically certified even if they only administered abortions by pill or whatever. Beyond that issue everything else he's at is normal conservative though I wish fiscal responsibility/balanced budget was a bigger issue for him.

He’s pro gun, for streamlining regulations, against entitlement reform, for repealing ObamaCare, making gas and electricity affordable, for preserve our sovereignty, security, and the rule of law regarding immigration. Have you been yankin’ our chains all this time.

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

“Revisions to the Iran points” was the subject line of a classified April 2012 e-mail to Clinton from Hanley. In it, the text reads, “Marina is trying to print for you.”

A classified e-mail marked “confidential,” which is the tier below “secret” or “top secret.” Perhaps they should let us all know what was in it, if there is nothing to see here. Right?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/report_hillarys_maid_had_access_to_topsecret_documents.html

We are talking about the email in the hotair story you linked. This message was unclasified at the date it was sent. Nothing is classified under EO13526 from the date it's created; it needs an affirmative action to be classified. At a later date it was decided that it fell under provision 1.4(b) and classified "Confidential" - hardly earth shattering. Lets wait until 2024 and see what the fuss was about. :cool:

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

He’s pro gun, for streamlining regulations, against entitlement reform, for repealing ObamaCare, making gas and electricity affordable, for preserve our sovereignty, security, and the rule of law regarding immigration. Have you been yankin’ our chains all this time.

Only if you weren't paying attention. I'm an agent of fact-based discussion. I'm an independent and frankly was a Moose Chilli away from voting for McCain once upon a time.

With Trump there is no need to bend truth to argue against him, he's been shooting himself in the foot since long before he stepped off the escalator. With Clinton attacks, there has been a rain of bull**** and "Truthiness" in this election cycle, lead by the biggest pathological liar I think has ever been seen in modern politics: how absurd is your sense of reality to double down on lies (eg. "I never said Climate Change was a hoax") in the face of overwhelming, blatant evidence to the contrary?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

Just as there has been a stream of constant Clinton demagoguery since the 90s. I mean the whole campaign against her rests heavily on emails which previous administrations did so much worse, and things that happened when she was Secretary of State which again, pale in comparison to the attacks incurred under previous cabinets. With that much bull**** flying in its hard not to call it out for what it is, it writes itself.

But sure rewind to 9 months ago: every day of the week I would have far preferred a candidate like Sanders who made ending profit-driven politics in Washington the central point of his campaign. Someone who was not affiliated with a political party (though he may have caucused with one) but when you declare war on the money the money fights back, and the media shut him out.

Christy42

Overheal wrote: »

Well since write-ins aren't permitted in SC and I can't vote for Bernie Sanders or Vermin Supreme I figured I would go with McMullin since Johnson's candidacy is not very far from a complete and utter joke and Jill Stein is a treeperson who seems like one or several chakra beads short of a necklace. Or if given the option I leave the POTUS field blank and do my local picks and I'm inclined to vote for the Dem challenger in my district because when I went to the Republican's website he was auctioning off tickets to Inauguration day in DC, and that was last month, the assumption on his part being he already had won and fcuk democracy.

I think you could have opened with this. It can be tough to remember everyone's affiliations and your posts tend to go fairly pro Hillary.

Techniquely I am also not a Hillary voter but that is more because I don't get a vote neither living in the states or being from there. Unfortunately while I agree I shouldn't get a vote for obvious reasons I am interested as the election will none the less have an effect on my life. This is in fact the same situation I had with Brexit.

Overheal

Christy42 wrote: »

I think you could have opened with this. It can be tough to remember everyone's affiliations and your posts tend to go fairly pro Hillary.

Doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm not pro-Hillary, I'm anti-bull****.

Skommando

Overheal wrote: »

Doesn't hurt my feelings. I'm not pro-Hillary, I'm anti-bull****.

Hilliary is an even bigger bullshyter than both trump and obama and that's a lot of bull.

Overheal

Skommando wrote: »

Hilliary is an even bigger bullshyter than both trump and obama and that's a lot of bull.

Can't rationally believe that. Trump would tell you the sky is green if he thought it suited his agenda at the time, and then deny having ever said it an hour later.

Skommando

Overheal wrote: »

Can't rationally believe that. Trump would tell you the sky is green if he thought it suited his agenda at the time, and then deny having ever said it an hour later.

Indeed, but Hillary and Obama do exactly the same, the language is deliberately just more vague.

Christy42

Skommando wrote: »

Indeed, but Hillary and Obama do exactly the same, the language is deliberately just more vague.

Is this backed up in the slightest?

Skommando

Christy42 wrote: »

Is this backed up in the slightest?

Name one specific measurable and quantifiable pre election promise made by Hillary Clinton ?

Name one specific measurable and quantifiable pre election promise made by Obama, that was delivered in specific measurable and quantifiable manner ?

26000 Elephants

Skommando wrote: »

Name one specific measurable and quantifiable pre election promise made by Obama, that was delivered in specific measurable and quantifiable manner ?

I can see how the policy of "Lets build a wall" appeals to you....

vetinari

Skommando, I agree with Overheal, I doubt that you can actually believe what you're writing.
It's one thing to maybe say that you think Hillary's lies are of greater significance.
To claim outright, that Trump tells less bull**** than Hillary hurts my head to be honest.

Overheal

Skommando wrote: »

Name one specific measurable and quantifiable pre election promise made by Hillary Clinton ?

Name one specific measurable and quantifiable pre election promise made by Obama, that was delivered in specific measurable and quantifiable manner ?

Obamameter: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

As for Hillarys promises is google down for you clear your cache http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-promises/

Skommando

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I can see how the policy of "Lets build a wall" appeals to you....

If you read the posts before reacting, you'd see I don't rate trump any higher

Skommando

Overheal wrote: »

Obamameter: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

As for Hillarys promises is google down for you clear your cache http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/jul/22/hillary-clintons-top-10-campaign-promises/

not one of them are in any way specific, which proves the point

Christy42

Skommando wrote: »

If you read the posts before reacting, you'd see I don't rate trump any higher

You very specifically said Hillary was a bigger bull ×#$/ €€$&/;.

Overheal

Skommando wrote: »

not one of them are in any way specific, which proves the point

You read all of them? In 5 minutes? Try again there slick. Or don't. But if you don't at least don't pretend you did. Got a low tolerance for straight bull****ters myself.

Skommando

Christy42 wrote: »

You very specifically said Obama and Hillary were worse for it.

yes they do even more bullshyting, but because they are careful to keep it veiled in vague platitudes, it fools more people, that doesn't mean i rate trump any higher

Christy42

Skommando wrote: »

not one of them are in any way specific, which proves the point

What is not clear about we will raise the minimum wage? Several others are also quite specific such as no tuition for some families or overturning citizen's u
United.

Skommando

Overheal wrote: »

You read all of them? In 5 minutes? Try again there slick. Or don't. But if you don't at least don't pretend you did. Got a low tolerance for straight bull****ters myself.

rather than trying to divert, how about providing from that list of vague platitudes, just one specific, quantifiable they promised, never mind delivered on ?

Skommando

Christy42 wrote: »

What is not clear about we will raise the minimum wage? Several others are also quite specific such as no tuition for some families or overturning citizen's u
United.

by how much ? when ? what fees do they promise not to introduce instead ?

Overheal

Skommando wrote: »

rather than trying to divert, how about providing from that list of vague platitudes, just one specific, quantifiable they promised, never mind delivered on ?

You require that I copy and paste articles from the Obamameter ?

Christy42

Skommando wrote: »

by how much ? when ? what fees do they promise not to introduce instead ?

12 dollars n hour but would support individual states and cities raising it higher.

As soon as she can get the bill through congress. The president can't just decide these things so they can say they will do things but putting them to a stricter timeline than the 4 years seems wrong as there are many more factors and any promise there would be lies and hope.

What fees do they promise not to introduce instead? I don't understand what you mean here.

Anything unspecific about the citizen's united bit?

K-9

Mod:

Calm it down and back to the topic.