Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
How is the timeline of when the State department will comply with FOIA requests relevant to your argument?
As for your posts being "relevant", I'm not surprised that you'd be one to take the internet far too seriously, but nothing on this board is "relevant". This board is for fun, not for "relevance".
If it makes you feel better to think of my mocking you as justification for you delusions, I can't stop you.
But I will continue to mock you for it.
You think you can spin hard enough to save Hillary?
No posts on this message board will have any effect on the Hillary, either way.
That's the problem with echo chambers, they inevitably result in nonsensical over-arching conspiracy theories, and the constant need to take yourselves way too damn seriously.
Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.The fact the state dept requested her lawyer delete any emails, knowing they had been ordered preserved... What were they trying to hide? Fortunately he seems to value his career more than his love of Hillary or the present state dept.Obama's State Dept. did not say they considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind.Clinton lawyer balked at first effort to delete classified email In violation of the court order. Hillary's lawyer did not comply with delete request.
Translation statement, this means that the e-mail or e-mails were of the HIGHEST top secret status, and they did not want the info being dumped to the media. This means that Obamas State Dept. considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind. This also means that the State Dept. can no longer police itself and that a special council will need to be appointed.
T
You sad that, they didn't.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
Op-ed? Can't find anythig saying it is an op-ed. It states he is a writer for the Post covering the White House and politicsAh dopey, you are actually arguing with the Washington Post (Watergate) not me. This e-mail story just keeps getting worse for Hillary ClintonThe FBI will have the say of what color Hilly wears..............The narratives you guys are able to create for yourselves from out of context rumors and conservative fantasies are facinating.
Someone should write a paper on it.
You silly boy you
What are you gonna do when this all turns out to be nothing?
You seem so invested in your delusions.
So if you want to argue with the Post and the Times, be my guest.
Silly boy.
Neither the Post nor the Times has made any statements regarding "20 judges" investigating "the biggest spy investigation of all time", or how Hillary has "given away national security information". The op-ed in the Post that you just linked to discusses her Presidential campaign, not whether or not she's a super-spy headed to prison - which is the delusion of yours that I was referring to.
How is the timeline of when the State department will comply with FOIA requests relevant to your argument?
As for your posts being "relevant", I'm not surprised that you'd be one to take the internet far too seriously, but nothing on this board is "relevant". This board is for fun, not for "relevance".
If it makes you feel better to think of my mocking you as justification for you delusions, I can't stop you.
But I will continue to mock you for it.
You think you can spin hard enough to save Hillary?
No posts on this message board will have any effect on the Hillary, either way.
That's the problem with echo chambers, they inevitably result in nonsensical over-arching conspiracy theories, and the constant need to take yourselves way too damn seriously.
Yawn, and Hillary really thinks an FBI investigation is funny.
Hillary is losing in both Iowa and New Hampshire............
Now doesn't that sound good
How is the timeline of when the State department will comply with FOIA requests relevant to your argument?
As for your posts being "relevant", I'm not surprised that you'd be one to take the internet far too seriously, but nothing on this board is "relevant". This board is for fun, not for "relevance".
If it makes you feel better to think of my mocking you as justification for you delusions, I can't stop you.
But I will continue to mock you for it.
You think you can spin hard enough to save Hillary?
No posts on this message board will have any effect on the Hillary, either way.
That's the problem with echo chambers, they inevitably result in nonsensical over-arching conspiracy theories, and the constant need to take yourselves way too damn seriously.
Yawn, and Hillary really thinks an FBI investigation is funny.
Hillary is losing in both Iowa and New Hampshire............
Now doesn't that sound good
More polling. You're a thick one, aren't you?
How is the timeline of when the State department will comply with FOIA requests relevant to your argument?
As for your posts being "relevant", I'm not surprised that you'd be one to take the internet far too seriously, but nothing on this board is "relevant". This board is for fun, not for "relevance".
If it makes you feel better to think of my mocking you as justification for you delusions, I can't stop you.
But I will continue to mock you for it.
You think you can spin hard enough to save Hillary?
No posts on this message board will have any effect on the Hillary, either way.
That's the problem with echo chambers, they inevitably result in nonsensical over-arching conspiracy theories, and the constant need to take yourselves way too damn seriously.
Yawn, and Hillary really thinks an FBI investigation is funny.
Hillary is losing in both Iowa and New Hampshire............
Now doesn't that sound good
More polling. You're a thick one, aren't you?
Senator Bernie Sanders has raised more than $1 million in small-dollar campaign contributions off two email solicitations that highlighted an attack from allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, a campaign official said Thursday.
Mr. Sanders and his campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, sent the emails after Correct the Record, a “super PAC” that is coordinating with Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, sent a document criticizing the senator’s record to a reporter at the Huffington Post.
“Yesterday, one of Hillary Clinton’s most prominent super PACs attacked our campaign pretty viciously,” the email from Mr. Sanders said. “They suggested I’d be friendly with Middle East terrorist organizations, and even tried to link me to a dead communist dictator.”
“They’ll keep trying,” Mr. Sanders added, “unless we make them pay a price for their attacks.”
Bernie says thanks Hilly.............................
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.The fact the state dept requested her lawyer delete any emails, knowing they had been ordered preserved... What were they trying to hide? Fortunately he seems to value his career more than his love of Hillary or the present state dept.Obama's State Dept. did not say they considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind.Clinton lawyer balked at first effort to delete classified email In violation of the court order. Hillary's lawyer did not comply with delete request.
Translation statement, this means that the e-mail or e-mails were of the HIGHEST top secret status, and they did not want the info being dumped to the media. This means that Obamas State Dept. considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind. This also means that the State Dept. can no longer police itself and that a special council will need to be appointed.
T
You sad that, they didn't.
Do you even read what I write?The fact you still believe in her, says much about you. Or ismit that you think a Dem should just do what ever it takes, laws be damned?
Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Trust me, top secret U.S. info on a Google server is breaking the law. That said I could care less if any laws were broken, as long as Hillary keeps dropping and losing her way. She will suspend her campaign soon enough.
That won't happen.Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Trust me, top secret U.S. info on a Google server is breaking the law. That said I could care less if any laws were broken, as long as Hillary keeps dropping and losing her way. She will suspend her campaign soon enough.
QUOTE="toxicmedia, post: 12334886, member: 30963"]Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.The fact the state dept requested her lawyer delete any emails, knowing they had been ordered preserved... What were they trying to hide? Fortunately he seems to value his career more than his love of Hillary or the present state dept.Obama's State Dept. did not say they considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind.Clinton lawyer balked at first effort to delete classified email In violation of the court order. Hillary's lawyer did not comply with delete request.
Translation statement, this means that the e-mail or e-mails were of the HIGHEST top secret status, and they did not want the info being dumped to the media. This means that Obamas State Dept. considered the info that Hillary let be compromised was of the most damaging kind. This also means that the State Dept. can no longer police itself and that a special council will need to be appointed.
T
You sad that, they didn't.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
Do you even read what I write?The fact you still believe in her, says much about you. Or ismit that you think a Dem should just do what ever it takes, laws be damned?
That won't happen.Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Trust me, top secret U.S. info on a Google server is breaking the law. That said I could care less if any laws were broken, as long as Hillary keeps dropping and losing her way. She will suspend her campaign soon enough.
The email scandal has turned everybody it's gonna turn, unless something besides accusations get proven.
Hillary is going to the convention, and like I said, will still probably get nominated, unless the GOP proves something
Op-ed? Can't find anythig saying it is an op-ed. It states he is a writer for the Post covering the White House and politicsAh dopey, you are actually arguing with the Washington Post (Watergate) not me. This e-mail story just keeps getting worse for Hillary ClintonThe FBI will have the say of what color Hilly wears..............
You silly boy you
What are you gonna do when this all turns out to be nothing?
You seem so invested in your delusions.
So if you want to argue with the Post and the Times, be my guest.
Silly boy.
Neither the Post nor the Times has made any statements regarding "20 judges" investigating "the biggest spy investigation of all time", or how Hillary has "given away national security information". The op-ed in the Post that you just linked to discusses her Presidential campaign, not whether or not she's a super-spy headed to prison - which is the delusion of yours that I was referring to.
His name is Chris Cillizza, and he writes a political blog called "The Fix" that's hosted by the Post.
I don't know what to tell you if you can't tell the difference between an op-ed and a news piece simply by reading it.
Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Trust me, top secret U.S. info on a Google server is breaking the law. That said I could care less if any laws were broken, as long as Hillary keeps dropping and losing her way. She will suspend her campaign soon enough.
Are you already walking back your claims of "the biggest spy investigation of all time"?
I was just starting to have fun!
The crimes you're talking about....That won't happen.Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Trust me, top secret U.S. info on a Google server is breaking the law. That said I could care less if any laws were broken, as long as Hillary keeps dropping and losing her way. She will suspend her campaign soon enough.
The email scandal has turned everybody it's gonna turn, unless something besides accusations get proven.
Hillary is going to the convention, and like I said, will still probably get nominated, unless the GOP proves something
Crimes have already been proven, the FBI is now determining the extent of espionage and data loss.
The crimes you're talking about....That won't happen.Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Trust me, top secret U.S. info on a Google server is breaking the law. That said I could care less if any laws were broken, as long as Hillary keeps dropping and losing her way. She will suspend her campaign soon enough.
The email scandal has turned everybody it's gonna turn, unless something besides accusations get proven.
Hillary is going to the convention, and like I said, will still probably get nominated, unless the GOP proves something
Crimes have already been proven, the FBI is now determining the extent of espionage and data loss.
Are they crimes as routine as a California Stop? or opening your wife's mail?
I guess I'd like to know if it happens all the time, in all areas of the state dept, and do other cabinet level secretaries do what she did routinely?
My point is that I can be outraged all day about that guy driving to work today that drove 50 mph in a 45mph zone....oh wait...that was me....and everyone around me was going 50-60mph
I've never seen Doc this butthurt lol
From the Post-
He also covers the White House for the newspaper and Web site.
I doubt the Post would hire just any joe schmoe they didn't trust.
And here is an opinion piece from the Post, note the address includes opinion, which the other does not. But you are welcome to believe what you like-
Time to rethink Hillary Clinton 2016
Op-ed? Can't find anythig saying it is an op-ed. It states he is a writer for the Post covering the White House and politicsAh dopey, you are actually arguing with the Washington Post (Watergate) not me. This e-mail story just keeps getting worse for Hillary Clinton
What are you gonna do when this all turns out to be nothing?
You seem so invested in your delusions.
So if you want to argue with the Post and the Times, be my guest.
Silly boy.
Neither the Post nor the Times has made any statements regarding "20 judges" investigating "the biggest spy investigation of all time", or how Hillary has "given away national security information". The op-ed in the Post that you just linked to discusses her Presidential campaign, not whether or not she's a super-spy headed to prison - which is the delusion of yours that I was referring to.
His name is Chris Cillizza, and he writes a political blog called "The Fix" that's hosted by the Post.
I don't know what to tell you if you can't tell the difference between an op-ed and a news piece simply by reading it.
Getting hacked is not a crime is it?Whenever somebody starts a sentence with "So what you're saying then is...."Every scandal, prior to being acually proven, needs to include the following accusations, or interest will die off prior to proof being presented.
What were they trying to hide?
We have lot's of unanswered questions.
If the had nothing to hide, they would talk to us about it.
What else could it be?
etc........
The IRS, Benghazi, and email scandals all have this language throughout.
So what you're saying then is that laws simply aren't meant to cover democrats?
Commoners and Republicans are the only ones subject to laws?
It's never anything I actually said.
Furthermore, there are always a few retards read to agree with the shit you made up, about what I said.
You have yet to prove any laws were broken, and if the "laws" broken were only polices and procedures, that's a whole dfferent thing.
If there were actual "laws" broken, and those laws are as routinely "broken" as not stopping completey for a stop sign...then nobody should be wasting our time prosecuting them for political advantage. That goes for Republicans, Democrats, and everybody else
Trust me, top secret U.S. info on a Google server is breaking the law. That said I could care less if any laws were broken, as long as Hillary keeps dropping and losing her way. She will suspend her campaign soon enough.
Are you already walking back your claims of "the biggest spy investigation of all time"?
I was just starting to have fun!
60,000 e-mails, from a sitting Secretary of State direct to East European Hackers.
Bloomberg is reporting FBI Scours Clinton Server for Evidence of Spying - Bloomberg View
