Assange just did it: WikiLeaks Dispenses 23,000 Hillary Emails Marked “C” for Confide
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Assange just did it: WikiLeaks Dispenses 23,000 Hillary Emails Marked “C” for Confide

  1. #1

    Assange just did it: WikiLeaks Dispenses 23,000 Hillary Emails Marked “C” for Confide

    Julian Assange just did it: WikiLeaks Dispenses 23,000 Hillary Emails Marked “C” for Confidential (Classified)
    .
    WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told us a month ago that the next batch of leaked Hillary Clinton emails could lead to an indictment.
    .
    Now, over 23,000 cables were just put out for the world to see.
    .
    FBI Director James Comey claimed that Clinton may have not understood what was classified and what wasn’t, but WikiLeaks isn’t buying it.
    .
    FBI Director James Comey on Thursday said it was not clear whether Hillary Clinton fully understood the government’s marking system for classified messages.
    .
    During a House Oversight Committee hearing, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) pressed Comey about whether he was testifying that Clinton didn’t know what a classified marking is.
    .
    “No, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be,” Comey responded. “It’s an interesting question whether she … was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in [parentheses] means.”
    .
    “You asked me if I would assume someone would know,” he added. “Probably before this investigation, I would have. I am not so sure of that any longer. I think it’s possible — possible — that she didn’t know what a C meant when she saw it in the body of an email like that.”
    .
    She didn’t get it, you guys.
    .
    Cut her a break!
    .
    Classic.
    .
    That’s who I want running the country – an old woman who doesn’t understand what she’s doing.
    .
    Are Democrat voters honestly foolish enough to believe Hillary did nothing wrong?
    .
    Read More: Julian Assange just did it: WikiLeaks Dispenses 23,000 Hillary Emails Marked “C” for Confidential (Classified)
    .
    My Thoughts;
    .
    But, but, but, wasn’t it Hillary that gave testimony under oath to Congress and told the American people multiple times that there wasn’t ANY classified items on her unsecured unauthorized E-mail server?
    .
    Just think what the 33,000 E-mails that she deleted and said consisted of baby shower and items to Bill (which he said he never used E-mail) had in them.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    This is an article from 4 weeks ago. As usual, you are posting old news as new and incorrect information. WikiLeaks did not publish 23,000 Hillary Emails Marked “C” for Confidential (Classified).

    As I said before, with your regular posts, you are doing a superb job in making gun owners look like idiots. I understand that you either don't care or simply fail to comprehend this.

  4. #3
    More inaccurate crap as usual, yet he cries if someone dare accuse him of dwelling in his mom's basement.
    I really hope he's not even a gun owner, regardless of whether he has a right to be.
    I could only imagine the mayhem...

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Robgmn View Post
    More inaccurate crap as usual, yet he cries if someone dare accuse him of dwelling in his mom's basement.
    What, pray tell, does one thing have to do with the other?

    Quote Originally Posted by Robgmn View Post
    I really hope he's not even a gun owner, regardless of whether he has a right to be.
    I could only imagine the mayhem...
    And what does posting inaccurate crap have to do with being a responsible gun owner?

    It is true though that you can only "imagine" the mayhem that comes from gun owning people who post inaccurate crap on the internet, because there is no source you could point to that would substantiate that mayhem emanates from such people. In most circles of thinking people, "imagining" mayhem originating from someone because of a non-violent character flaw of consistently posting crap would be seen as *making up* stuff about such people for which no evidence exists to substantiate what you've made up about them.

    Can't you make a point about posting inaccurate crap without making stuff up about the person posting it, or conflating two completely unrelated ideas as though one has anything in the world to do with the other?

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    What, pray tell, does one thing have to do with the other?



    And what does posting inaccurate crap have to do with being a responsible gun owner?

    It is true though that you can only "imagine" the mayhem that comes from gun owning people who post inaccurate crap on the internet, because there is no source you could point to that would substantiate that mayhem emanates from such people. In most circles of thinking people, "imagining" mayhem originating from someone because of a non-violent character flaw of consistently posting crap would be seen as *making up* stuff about such people for which no evidence exists to substantiate what you've made up about them.

    Can't you make a point about posting inaccurate crap without making stuff up about the person posting it, or conflating two completely unrelated ideas as though one has anything in the world to do with the other?

    Blues
    I'll simplify it for you: he posts lies about others, but cries foul when he accuses someone of posting lies about him.
    Hypocrisy.

    Mayhem: If he actually believes the crap he posts is true, imagine what happens when he leaves the basement and thinks that someone from Clinton's "wet work" spec-ops team is following him and prepared to "take him out". Out comes the gun, and an innocent gets hurt.
    It's kind of like the drug addicts who claw their skin off in an attempt to remove the bugs that aren't on their skin.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Robgmn View Post
    I'll simplify it for you: he posts lies about others, but cries foul when he accuses someone of posting lies about him.
    Hypocrisy.

    Mayhem: If he actually believes the crap he posts is true, imagine what happens when he leaves the basement and thinks that someone from Clinton's "wet work" spec-ops team is following him and prepared to "take him out". Out comes the gun, and an innocent gets hurt.
    It's kind of like the drug addicts who claw their skin off in an attempt to remove the bugs that aren't on their skin.
    So the answer to the question, "Can't you make a point about posting inaccurate crap without making stuff up about the person posting it, or conflating two completely unrelated ideas as though one has anything in the world to do with the other?" is a resounding, "No, I can't!"

    Got it.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast