57Brave
Well-known member
Never a doubt.
still haven't seen the "corruption" explained.
Knew you couldn't resist buying into "Crooked Hillary"
"We love the uneducated"
To a tee
Meme & Quote Thread
- Thread starter sturg33
- Start date
Never a doubt.
still haven't seen the "corruption" explained.
Knew you couldn't resist buying into "Crooked Hillary"
"We love the uneducated"
To a tee
sturg33
I
LOL yes the undedicated are the people who can think for themselves objectively.
Here's a quick two for you... but I suppose you won't read them
1. Clinton Foundation donors expected “benefits in return for gifts.”
The Daily Caller uncovered an independent “governance review” by a law firm that specializes in nonprofits. The review was requested by Mrs. Clinton’s daughter Chelsea who had concerns about the Clinton Foundation and potential conflict-of-interests with its donors, and was sharply opposed by her father’s friends and donors. The review, conducted in December 2010, concluded many of the foundation’s donors had “an expectation of a quid pro quo benefits in return for gifts.”
7. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman urged her to lie to the public on whether she sent classified information.
Bloomberg News reported Mrs. Clinton’s campaign spokesman Brian Fallon urged her to issue a blanket denial that she ever sent classified information through her private email server because anything less could open her up to charges she broke the law.
“We should not think it is fine to find something that ‘should have been classified at the time,’ ” Mr. Fallon, the spokesman, wrote to other top campaign officials on Aug. 22, 2015, as they debated a statement Mrs. Clinton would make on her use of an email server in her home.
“Our position is that no such material exists, else it could be said she mishandled classified info,” Mr. Fallon wrote
Wait.
What?
Were you bitching when Wikileaks ripped the cover off Gitmo? The NSA? Released the Afghanistan war logs?
Maybe you don't even realize that Wikileaks did those things.
And I'm asking you why any country or regulation SHOULD govern WikiLeaks.
Why would you want to regulate freedom of speech?
To answer your basic question: Nobody does. And that's the way it should be.
So, you are okay with Hillary being subpoenaed and then subsequently deleting her messages, but you are upset with the group that has sought to expose the reason behind why those messages were so important to delete?
How do you justify that in your mind?
And, again, Wikileaks claims that nothing here is hacked, but rather that it was leaked to them. You can choose to believe the Russian angle if you are into all of that conspiratorial crap.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I agree with you, but I'm saving this quote for a later date.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
I agree with this too.
57Brave
Well-known member
go ahead. I think this a conversation worth having.
And, I have mixed emotions on Wikileaks and Eric Snowdon etc
let's look at drug laws. a cop comes to your door and wants in. He needs a search warrant
before he gets to ransack your house
I kinda look at this phase of Wikileak the way I look at that guy who rooted through Bob Dylans trash trying to find a scrap of ... whatever
or paparazzi invading the space of an actor who happens to be in movies and TV.
Suppose I have the skills to invade AA's private emails and find an email clearly stating he is in fact named Landon McDonald and is as pearly white as the day is long
Do I have that right ?
Suppose I suspect one of you (unnamed ) is a sexual predator.
With the skills of a hacker -- is it my charge to invade another's private conversations to flesh out my suspicions.
Suppose I suspect my neighbor of growing pot in his attic.
Does that give me the right to break into his house to prove my suspicions ?
Suppose I suspect one of you is a closet Nationals fan.
Do I have the right to invade your private CPU to find you secretly belong to any and all things Nationals?
I get the want for transparency yet I understand that the need for subpoena and search warrants are what makes us not Russia,China or Cold War East Germany.
It could be argued that Wikileaks is in direct violation of our 4th Ammendment.
Not being a constitutional scholar I am guessing it bumps up against the 3rd as well
....
So yeah, I am concerned what law and what government is responsible for these breaches in personal security
John Podesta is/was a private citizen and is protected by law.
Supoena his ass if you want -- or we get to chaotically bully one another until the one with the most wins and everyone else is under their thumb.
Putin's Russia ???
Kim Jung Il's N Korea ??
-----------------
This is a tough one
57Brave
Well-known member
Bill Kristol @BillKristol 45m45 minutes ago
Bill Kristol Retweeted Rep. Jeff Duncan
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans didn't think private emails should be hacked, especially at behest of a hostile foreign power.
......
No one understands how much it pains me to find agreement with Bill Kristol
Bill Kristol Retweeted Rep. Jeff Duncan
I'm old enough to remember when Republicans didn't think private emails should be hacked, especially at behest of a hostile foreign power.
......
No one understands how much it pains me to find agreement with Bill Kristol
57Brave
Well-known member
Suppose I hack your email to find your health insurance really hasn't gone up 79% like you say.
Since I suspect as much and should as I guessed --- am right
Does the fact that my suspicions are borne out justify my intruding on your private space
????
Really curious to see yours and everyone else's point of view on this
....................................................................................................................................
Secondly, the leaks have shown no corruption. Only supposed more of the same accusations.
"Individually" ????
Like the pot I found in someones attic - it is inadmissible in a court of law.
Therefore irrelevant
We still protect individual privacy, don't we?
Or, is it boogey man when NSA does it but when Wikileaks does it to suit your politics it is ok ?
Though I was glad to see Trumps 3 years of tax returns -- I have the same reservations with them.
I think he has a point in that they were obtained illegally. Those are his and there is a mechanism that will or won't produce them
Protecting that mechanism is ---
We have yet to see HRC fingerprints .
Watergate didn't involve Nixon until the tapes were revealed.
There are no tapes in HRC office.
Merely Podesta's lunch order
Since I suspect as much and should as I guessed --- am right
Does the fact that my suspicions are borne out justify my intruding on your private space
????
Really curious to see yours and everyone else's point of view on this
....................................................................................................................................
Secondly, the leaks have shown no corruption. Only supposed more of the same accusations.
"Individually" ????
Like the pot I found in someones attic - it is inadmissible in a court of law.
Therefore irrelevant
We still protect individual privacy, don't we?
Or, is it boogey man when NSA does it but when Wikileaks does it to suit your politics it is ok ?
Though I was glad to see Trumps 3 years of tax returns -- I have the same reservations with them.
I think he has a point in that they were obtained illegally. Those are his and there is a mechanism that will or won't produce them
Protecting that mechanism is ---
We have yet to see HRC fingerprints .
Watergate didn't involve Nixon until the tapes were revealed.
There are no tapes in HRC office.
Merely Podesta's lunch order
I heard Paul Begala use this line tonight on CNN.
Wish that NBC had employed the same standard on their Nightly News program.
