Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hillary Clinton leaked intel to hurt Israeli war plans says watchdog attorney - National Law Enforcement Examiner.comIn a Washington Post front page news story on March 2, 2015, reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel's plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli's war plans, since President Barack Obama and his staff -- including his top advisor Valerie Jarrett, herself born in Iran -- believed Israel was willing and had the technical and strategic expertise to launch a preemptive sneak attack on Iran in order to eliminate their nuclear threat.
The link in the Examiner story to the Anne Gearan story is a March 3 story in the Washington Post, and it says nothing about a leak to a New York Times reporter by Clinton.
Correct.No credible evidence in the story.
Just be aware that when you use hack sources, they have no credibility and your posts will be taken with the grain of salt they deserve.Then you should have posted the original source instead of a hack filter.Again learn to navigate links, you're just using the lame attempt of attacking a source w/o recognizing the story is linked to the Examiner., fool
Once again, you little nothing and for the last time, YOU do not dictate how anyone posts. Lean it....then live it little one
TRANSLATION: Damn, they caught us again. I wish they'd quit doing that.Time for republicans to lauch the "We dont know what we dont know" bomb. In order to demand any and everything from Clinton and crank up the rumor mill.
Correct.No credible evidence in the story.
The "former prosecuting attorney" is Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch. He is a right winger who has had it in for the Clintons since the 90s. So for the Examiner to call him "nonpartisan" is hilarious.
The Examiner also claimed "reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel's plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli's war plans", which is an outright lie.
Gearan made no mention of a release of Isreal's plans to the NYT in her article.
TRANSLATION: Aw, you caught me. But I'm still going to try to pretend there's something wrong with the story even though I can't name anything or back up my accusation.Then you should have posted the original source instead of a hack filter.Again learn to navigate links, you're just using the lame attempt of attacking a source w/o recognizing the story is linked to the Examiner., fool
All we have at this point is a hack partisan making a "probably" claim, with ZERO evidence provided.TRANSLATION: Damn, they caught us again. I wish they'd quit doing that.Time for republicans to lauch the "We dont know what we dont know" bomb. In order to demand any and everything from Clinton and crank up the rumor mill.
Again learn to navigate links, you're just using the lame attempt of attacking a source w/o recognizing the story is linked to the Examiner., fool
Granted that the Examiner is more credible than West, its still a blog linking to a blog which links to an op/ed that "intimates" wrongdoing.
As I said above, there is no evidence. Its all opinion.
Its YOU who needs to learn to navigate your own links.
Says you, clown car. While I'm at it why do you loons use those comical clowns for avatars? So childish
Now stay on topic and address the subject matter and cease with lame attempts at deflection
Do any of you really think scum of the earth dimocrap voters give a FLYING **** about any and all crimes committed by Hitlery? (or any other dimocrap scumbag for that matter)
Seriously, are you that devoid of rational thought?
Someone believes something happened they cant prove.
Do any of you really think scum of the earth dimocrap voters give a FLYING **** about any and all crimes committed by Hitlery? (or any other dimocrap scumbag for that matter)
Seriously, are you that devoid of rational thought?
Speaking of rational thought, please list the evidence Klayman provided for his "probably" claim.
He's a lawyer. So he knows when he manufactures bullshit, he has to legally say "probably" or "could have" when he doesn't have a shred of evidence.
Do any of you really think scum of the earth dimocrap voters give a FLYING **** about any and all crimes committed by Hitlery? (or any other dimocrap scumbag for that matter)
Seriously, are you that devoid of rational thought?
Speaking of rational thought, please list the evidence Klayman provided for his "probably" claim.
He's a lawyer. So he knows when he manufactures bullshit, he has to legally say "probably" or "could have" when he doesn't have a shred of evidence.
Same question to SassyIrishLass
Time for republicans to lauch the "We dont know what we dont know" bomb. In order to demand any and everything from Clinton and crank up the rumor mill.
Policies? Nope
Governing? NopeAgain learn to navigate links, you're just using the lame attempt of attacking a source w/o recognizing the story is linked to the Examiner., fool
Or you could use credible sources and post accurate information.
Oh wait
Correct.No credible evidence in the story.
The "former prosecuting attorney" is Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch. He is a right winger who has had it in for the Clintons since the 90s. So for the Examiner to call him "nonpartisan" is hilarious.
The Examiner also claimed "reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel's plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli's war plans", which is an outright lie.
Gearan made no mention of a release of Isreal's plans to the NYT in her article.
Well this thread was concocted by one of the least intelligent and most irrationally biased RWnuts we've seen on this forum in a while, so no surprise here.
Do any of you really think scum of the earth dimocrap voters give a FLYING **** about any and all crimes committed by Hitlery? (or any other dimocrap scumbag for that matter)
Seriously, are you that devoid of rational thought?
Speaking of rational thought, please list the evidence Klayman provided for his "probably" claim.
He's a lawyer. So he knows when he manufactures bullshit, he has to legally say "probably" or "could have" when he doesn't have a shred of evidence.
Same question to SassyIrishLassTime for republicans to lauch the "We dont know what we dont know" bomb. In order to demand any and everything from Clinton and crank up the rumor mill.
Policies? Nope
Governing? NopeAgain learn to navigate links, you're just using the lame attempt of attacking a source w/o recognizing the story is linked to the Examiner., fool
Or you could use credible sources and post accurate information.
Oh wait
Or you also could approach the topic and cease your nonsense. Unless of course it's all you have as Cankles goes down in flames. AHAHAHAHA The old witch will never be POTUS, never
Correct.No credible evidence in the story.
The "former prosecuting attorney" is Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch. He is a right winger who has had it in for the Clintons since the 90s. So for the Examiner to call him "nonpartisan" is hilarious.
The Examiner also claimed "reporter Anne Gearan intimated that the likely reason for the release of Israel's plans to a New York Times reporter was intended to hurt the Israeli's war plans", which is an outright lie.
Gearan made no mention of a release of Isreal's plans to the NYT in her article.
Well this thread was concocted by one of the least intelligent and most irrationally biased RWnuts we've seen on this forum in a while, so no surprise here.
You are on here every time I sign in, no job or no life, loser?
TRANSLATION: Aw, you caught me. But I'm still going to try to pretend there's something wrong with the story even though I can't name anything or back up my accusation.Then you should have posted the original source instead of a hack filter.Again learn to navigate links, you're just using the lame attempt of attacking a source w/o recognizing the story is linked to the Examiner., fool
Do any of you really think scum of the earth dimocrap voters give a FLYING **** about any and all crimes committed by Hitlery? (or any other dimocrap scumbag for that matter)
Seriously, are you that devoid of rational thought?
Speaking of rational thought, please list the evidence Klayman provided for his "probably" claim.
He's a lawyer. So he knows when he manufactures bullshit, he has to legally say "probably" or "could have" when he doesn't have a shred of evidence.
Same question to SassyIrishLassTime for republicans to lauch the "We dont know what we dont know" bomb. In order to demand any and everything from Clinton and crank up the rumor mill.
Policies? Nope
Governing? NopeAgain learn to navigate links, you're just using the lame attempt of attacking a source w/o recognizing the story is linked to the Examiner., fool
Or you could use credible sources and post accurate information.
Oh wait
Or you also could approach the topic and cease your nonsense. Unless of course it's all you have as Cankles goes down in flames. AHAHAHAHA The old witch will never be POTUS, never