Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Hillary Probed


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Hillary Probed Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 2:17:03 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
except it didnt JUST pop up, been out there for a while. http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
Feb 29 this year? I imagine the state department ran thru those 50K in batches redacting, what do you imagine?

Its just that the nutsucker slobber blogs haven't dribbled out many with their special brand of factlessness yet. Each one being a big bombshell. So its new to the nutsuckers, don't you think.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1061
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 2:43:36 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

except it didnt JUST pop up, been out there for a while. http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
Feb 29 this year? I imagine the state department ran thru those 50K in batches redacting, what do you imagine?

Its just that the nutsucker slobber blogs haven't dribbled out many with their special brand of factlessness yet. Each one being a big bombshell. So its new to the nutsuckers, don't you think.


As seems to often be the case, your link isn't to anything relevant. Here's a link to what the State Department was required to produce and it wasn't batches of 50,000.

So say, 8,000 a month. Say for giggles State puts 10 people on it per month. That means a staffer has to do 36 per day. Not terribly difficult.

Edited to add link. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/31/politics/clinton-email-release-state-department-behind/



< Message edited by Nnanji -- 5/13/2016 2:44:31 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 1062
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 2:51:29 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

except it didnt JUST pop up, been out there for a while. http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
Feb 29 this year? I imagine the state department ran thru those 50K in batches redacting, what do you imagine?

Its just that the nutsucker slobber blogs haven't dribbled out many with their special brand of factlessness yet. Each one being a big bombshell. So its new to the nutsuckers, don't you think.


Oh, and, the link bounty provided said the emails were new and not part of the 30,000 the State Department previously released. So, you'll have to sort that out with links that show its part of the same ol thing. Good on ya. I'd like to get to the bottom of it and I know you'll provide the link to prove what your saying is more correct.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 1063
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 2:56:49 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
In his column for PJ Media, my friend Ron Radosh, the distinguished historian, outlines the case for believing that Hillary Clinton is the “lesser of two evils” compared to Donald Trump. Ron says that he is “fully aware” of Hillary’s liabilities, yet concludes:

On foreign policy, there is more hope that [she] will take a course that asserts American leadership abroad.
Ron is not alone in asserting this. Several prominent conservatives have, with varying degrees of hesitation (not to say repugnance), embraced Hillary Clinton as the less bad alternative to Donald Trump.

A new film, which will debut Monday at Cannes, may force them to reconsider that judgment.

Clinton Cash, the documentary film which I watched in previews yesterday, is based on the best-selling exposé of the same name by Peter Schweizer, the tireless investigative journalist who has devoted himself to confronting political corruption and crony capitalism regardless of the political affiliation of the perpetrators. Produced by Breitbart’s Stephen K. Bannon and directed by M. A. Taylor, Clinton Cash is crisply narrated by Schweizer and provides a relentless and devastating portrait of brazen financial venality in exchange for political favors.

SPONSORED


I read through Clinton Cash quickly when it came out last May. This was no right-wing hit job (as the Clinton campaign asserted) but rather a methodical and exhaustively sourced chronicle of how the Clintons parlayed Bill’s celebrity, Hillary’s position as secretary of State, and her possible future tenure as president of the United States into a veritable Niagara of cash.

Eye-popping speaking fees for Bill -- $250,000, $500,000, even $750,000 a pop -- and millions upon millions directed to the Clinton Foundation and its offshoots. Where was the money coming from? Did they actually find his "wisdom" that valuable?

No. The money came from multinational corporations that needed a favor. Shady foreign financiers. Dubious state entities in Africa, Saudi Arabia, Russia, South America, and elsewhere.

Are you worried about “money in politics”? Stop the car, get an extended-stay room, and take a long hard look at the Clintons’ operation for the last sixteen years.


The Associated Press estimated that their net worth when they left the White House in 2000 was zero (really, minus $500K). Now they are worth about $200 million.

How did they do it? By “reading The Wall Street Journal” (classical reference)?

Not quite. The Clintons have perfected pay-to-play political influence peddling on a breathtaking scale. Reading Clinton Cash is a nauseating experience.

At the center of the book is not just a tale of private greed and venality. That is just business as usual in Washington (and elsewhere). No, what is downright scary is way the Clintons have been willing to trade away legitimate environmental concerns and even our national security for the sake of filthy lucre.

Do you doubt the authority of Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution? How about The New York Times, then?

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1064
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 3:55:23 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
eric bolling thinks the Clinton foundation cash for influence story is bigger than the email problem and that we're only hearing the tip of the iceberg.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 1065
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 5:11:36 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
Hum, it appears it wasn't even an hour.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1066
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 5:26:07 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
Have at it.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 1067
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 5:32:53 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
LOL, nah, I reported you guys enough already today.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1068
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 5:34:43 PM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

LOL, nah, I reported you guys enough already today.

You've reduced the discussion to this? Why? Because you see your facts don't hold up?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 1069
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/13/2016 5:44:38 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
heres a fuller representation of the story if he cares to read it:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-new-clinton-emails-reveal-clinton-knew-about-security-risk-of-private-blackberry-avoided-use-of-secure-phone/

if you follow one of the internal links, it takes you to here:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-huma-production-7-00684-pg-100-232-9752-59/

at which you will find the text of the email conversation in question---the one about not being able to use the secure line. at the beginning of the text is this:

quote:

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department State Case No. F-2015-06322 Doc No. C05939752 Date: 04/29/2016


so if im reading that rightly, and I might not be---this isn't "old news"...

by way of further confirmation, the wsj search page doesn't work for me where im at, i'll try tomorrow...

in any event, it didn't make its way to a recognizable form until may 12, which is when judicial watch published it.

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 5/13/2016 6:41:51 PM >

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1070
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 4:41:50 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Judicial watch published it on that date, the fact that nutsucker systems are failures and do not work is not breaking news.

An unclassified document about unclassified mundane stuff. Its pants shitting time.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 1071
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 7:32:31 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
So, just your opinion of nut sucking.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 1072
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 7:33:17 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

except it didnt JUST pop up, been out there for a while. http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
Feb 29 this year? I imagine the state department ran thru those 50K in batches redacting, what do you imagine?

Its just that the nutsucker slobber blogs haven't dribbled out many with their special brand of factlessness yet. Each one being a big bombshell. So its new to the nutsuckers, don't you think.


Oh, and, the link bounty provided said the emails were new and not part of the 30,000 the State Department previously released. So, you'll have to sort that out with links that show its part of the same ol thing. Good on ya. I'd like to get to the bottom of it and I know you'll provide the link to prove what your saying is more correct.


so, fully as you might expect, i just did a search on the wsj link, and the email in question is NOT THERE.

the 2009 emails from cheryl mills dont start until march. meaning its not in the orginal collection the state department turned over. meaning it is indeed NEW.

and meaning, lastly and repeatedly, that if he were a student he'd fail, and if this were his job, he'd be fired.

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1073
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 7:37:21 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
It amazes me how his hate blinds him to only see within his preconceived world view. It's an object lesson.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 1074
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 7:40:20 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

except it didnt JUST pop up, been out there for a while. http://graphics.wsj.com/hillary-clinton-email-documents/
Feb 29 this year? I imagine the state department ran thru those 50K in batches redacting, what do you imagine?

Its just that the nutsucker slobber blogs haven't dribbled out many with their special brand of factlessness yet. Each one being a big bombshell. So its new to the nutsuckers, don't you think.


Oh, and, the link bounty provided said the emails were new and not part of the 30,000 the State Department previously released. So, you'll have to sort that out with links that show its part of the same ol thing. Good on ya. I'd like to get to the bottom of it and I know you'll provide the link to prove what your saying is more correct.


so, fully as you might expect, i just did a search on the wsj link, and the email in question is NOT THERE.

the 2009 emails from cheryl mills dont start until march. meaning its not in the orginal collection the state department turned over. meaning it is indeed NEW.

and meaning, lastly and repeatedly, that if he were a student he'd fail, and if this were his job, he'd be fired.


If you were a teacher, you would be left behind. If you were a teacher in my state, you would be fired and incarcerated.


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 1075
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 7:40:33 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
speaking of not seeing, here's the very line from the judicial watch page:

Judicial Watch today released 296 pages of new State Department documents...

< Message edited by bounty44 -- 5/14/2016 8:04:45 AM >

(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1076
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 8:00:14 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
yes but google had them posting the same file back in september last year. Google doesnt usually make mistakes for that, now the link has disapeared, so its more than likely they scrubbed their own archive.
I posted it yesterday, today its no longer googleable.


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 1077
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 8:03:07 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
Judicial Watch today released new State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages) that again appear to contradict statements by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department and that she did not use her clintonemail.com system until March 18, 2009.

Judicial Watch recently released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails.

The documents were obtained by Judicial Watch in response a court order in a May 5,2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the State Department, after it failed to respond to a March 18 FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)). The lawsuit seeks:.............

So, they claim that Hillary did not turn over these emails to State, yet they got them from State. [ (#epic fail #1) .

Content of email:

I was gonna call you.
I didnt get your call.
No, you call me.
Do you want me to call you?
Never mind, I'll call you.

Nutsucker pants shitting.........connect the dots, take the deep breath nutsuckers. ( #epic fail #2 )

I am wrong that these were the original 55k pages or whatever was published, looks like state did not dump them out and did so based on a FOIA request, later adjudicated.

Still, big fuckin deal here.

No facts of anything, no proof of anything, just nutsucker conspiracy theories, all of which are at least 25 years old.

Interesting that nutsuckers cannot connect the dots that W invades the middle east and destabilizes it and the rise of the problems in the middle east including ISIL. Interesting that the nutsuckers see no conspiracy in Cheney meeting with oil executives on the eve of the War. Interesting that nutsuckers see no connect the dots when W and nutsucker asleep at the wheel and criminality drop this country into a deep depression.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 1078
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 8:11:33 AM   
Nnanji


Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
Except the discussion was about classified material and it was an email from prior to when Clinton (the rape shamer) said she was using the system.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 1079
RE: Hillary Probed - 5/14/2016 8:25:19 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Except the discussion was about classified material and it was an email from prior to when Clinton (the rape shamer) said she was using the system.

Except that no. It was material that was given to state, and the raper nutsuckers with no shame don't understand what the word UNCLASSIFIED at the top means.

nothing at all illegal in this whole fuck-o-ree but the nutsuckers are used to that having found nothing in 25 years.

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 5/14/2016 8:26:23 AM >


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Nnanji)
Profile   Post #: 1080
Page:   <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Hillary Probed Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.182