Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.
There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State
heh I "demand" it because I know you can't profive it. and when I ask 6 times and get "it's in the wheat field" yes I stop taking you off ignore.
I should stop doing that.
I show you they were asking for her mails before her "retention" policy and you call my source a hack. so what is the point of providing them to you when this is what youll do with them.
Atkinson is a hack. She is misleading and a bit of a goofball since she keeps suing the government claiming they’re spying on her. That’s not normal behavior.
Anyway, you’re correct about one thing. The State Dept did ask for her emails before she deleted anything. And she handed them over. After she handed them over, she changed her retention policy since she had no obligation to preserve anything at that point. This is an important detail that you’re are leaving out.
Also of note, no one issued her any subpoena prior to March 2015. She changed her retention policy in December 2014. Hard to claim she defied a subpoena she hadn’t even gotten. Impossible one might say.
This was all documented in the FBI report which I’ve pointed pages and paragraphs for you already.
WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
now she said that they were personal yoga/wedding e-mails.
funny. i query on YOGA and WEDDING and i get 70 hits.
this one cracked me up:
WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive
but for 33k mails about yoga and weddings, that sure doesn't show up in the results. may be a good reason for that, maybe not. but it is in fact a question just the same of "what did she delete again"?
and sharyl isn't giving up her fight against the DOJ. you can mischaracterize it all you like. but it's a well known fact she was spied on. i've seen nothing to say it still continued, but your statement seems to indicate she says they are.
That doesn’t make sense. You’ve linked to the database of government related emails she submitted to the State Dept. Why would you expect to be able to find many emails about yoga and weddings? The “yoga and weddings” you’re referencing was Clinton commenting on her personal emails and are were not submitted. So yeah, it’s pretty obvious that there a good explanation.
It is not a fact that Atkinson was spied on. Her lawsuits have been dismissed. Her appeals have been dismissed. Her claims are meritless. She has no evidence the government was doing anything to her. She’s a goof.
Ive linked the FBI report and commented on the information that details how her lawyer searched for work related emails.
why would wiki leaks supply ONLY turned in mail? that's not leaked then is it? but hey, if wrong you got me there.
now, onto attkisson: this is why we can't have nice conversations. you simply won't allow ANYONE on the "other side" to be right about anything. you defend the left with blinders on in many ways i see people on the right do as well.
it's ******* stupid.
now you can argue with all these people if you want to keep thinking sharyl lied.
Sharyl Attkisson: How Government Illegally Spied On Journalists And Doctored Documents!
It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me
oh look - they admit it:
Sharyl Attkisson: Feds admit to spying on me - WND
The Justice Dept. cover up of its spying on me and others– continues. | Sharyl Attkisson
and it was on CBS:
now as for case dismissed - you're so full of ******* shit it hurts. it is STILL ONGOING and in court. we also have judges who agree the DOJ is hiding information from her relevant to the case and refuse to let her know who the contacts are yet hold her accountable to do just that. but i'm sure you're not following the case, you're just being your usual dick-bent self who denounces anything you already don't approve of or which YOUR SIDE says you must think.
now this is so far off topic if you'd like to continue, feel free to jump into the media forum where i am posting updates and continue being stupid there. you can here too, btw.
Well, you could have read the Wikileaks page you linked because it explains at the top of the page that these were the emails submitted by Clinton:
The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request.
No, not a leak, but it was part of Assange's campaign against Clinton in the last election, a campaign that was in part revealed by the Mueller investigation.
You're making unwarranted assumptions about what I am saying and why. There are plenty of people on the right that make very compelling arguments. It's just that the popular characters on the right, by and large, these days tend to be some of these people like Attkisson with questionable backgrounds. She can say whatever she wants in an Op-Ed or interview or even a book. However, when the rubber meets the road, the actual evidence to back up what she's claiming comes up lacking. This isn't about not wanting her to be right, it's about not believing something which has no evidence to support it.
You can read the IG report on Attkisson's claim. Again, it's not selectable text so you'll have to read parts of it yourself. It's really only 4 pages so it won't take long to read the whole thing if you want. I suggest you do because it's enlightening.
CBS declined to let the IG examine her work computer or review the forensic report. Page 2 paragraph 3.
Attkisson did give the IG her personal computer which she claimed was hacked. She makes claims about a technician having found evidence her computer was hacked. The IG found that someone searched her logs but did so while using the computer and potentially contaminating the data. Page 2 paragraph 5. So she used someone who didn't really know what they were doing. The IG found zero evidence of any malicious code or unauthorized access. Page 2 paragarph 6.
Attkisson claimed that CBS sent a technician to examine her computer, CBS states that's not the case. Page 3 paragraph 1.
Attkisson claims that IP addresses were found on her computer from the Post Office (so she sued the postmaster general of all people, because of course that's someone that's in on it), the IG found no evidence of anything of the sort. Page 3 paragraph 2.
Attkisson states her technician she paid found all of these things, however when the IG asked to see their findings or even talk with the guy she hired, she declined. Page 3 paragraph 3.
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/SharylAttkissonIGreport.pdf
So you see if I blow off her claims as baseless, I think I have good reason to. Her evidence sounds like the sort of stuff someone would attribute to hacking when they don't really know what they're talking about. Finally, when asked to see the actual evidence, it either doesn't exist or Attkisson declines to provide it.
She's a goof.