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.
They were forced to report that stuff or be left behind. There was a time for about a week when the ONLY people reporting on Benghazi, the servers, and a host of other issues was when the outcry was so large they could not ignore it.That is not what I said. I said they would not hesitate. They have in the past, release classified information that was questionable with regard to harming the US government or putting lives in jeopardy. I have no links but going on memory. My point was that the media hates anyone not in agreement with their world view (particularly Republicans) and would not hesitate to do what they accuse the Russians of doing in order to harm those they disagree with.Yes, and he was clear that this was only his opinion. However, I know of no media outlet that would hesitate to publish information that puts lives at risk or hurt the government if it gives them a scoop on the competitors. In essence, I do no believe that the US media would hesitate to release classified information that would harm lives or the government if it similarly harmed a Republican no matter what office they held.That wasn't the point of what he said... he was speaking more about the fact of putting lives at risk and hurting the government.
That is why I do not make any distinction between the media (of any country including this one) and wikileaks.
Please show where the U.S. media has released information like WikiLeaks has that has put American lives at risk. The last time I remember them doing it, they gave up the name of a field agent... and the shit hit the fan over it.
But that same media reported all the stuff about Hillary's servers and emails... and Benghazi... and Lynch's meeting with Bill on the plane... plenty of stuff that was not favorable for her.
You cannot really believe that the media ignores massive amounts of information and intentionally underreports, minimize reports on information damaging to the Democrats.
Have you noticed that the number of casualties reported by the media went unreported under Obama? Or whenever some moral issue comes up with a member of congress they neverr state they are a Demcorat but only by their title, whereas it would be stated right up front it was a Republican congressperson so that the whole world knew it.
It all adds up. Sorry, but harm to the US government or the lives of operatives would take a back seat if the media had an opportunity to take down a repbublican.
Do you doubt they would not hesistate if the could use it to take down Trump?
What do you mean "admitted"? The only thing he's guilty of is not recommending charges.Comey just admitted he is under investigation for his acts of handling the Clinton email and server investigation...
How so? You think it was a coincidence? Never heard anyone rule out murder for whistleblowing. How would they know?That's right. Seth got whacked before he could send it to them. Maybe they hire Guccifer 2.0.Is that why the DNC informant got whacked?Comey just said that he believed information released by WikiLeaks put American lives at risk and that the FBI is investigating them but could not talk about charges for Assange yet...
...again, WikiLeaks admitted they got their information from Gucifer, not Seth Rich.
That's a large leap to make... and is counter to what has been said from the people involved.
It was obvious I was calling you on your accusatory tone. It was mentioned long ago they would be investigating him, the elections, Hillary, etc. This is all news huh?What do you mean "admitted"? The only thing he's guilty of is not recommending charges.Comey just admitted he is under investigation for his acts of handling the Clinton email and server investigation...
He just said that he is under investigation for how he handled it. What do you need explained from that?
Typically you missed the point. He was going to leak the emails.How so? You think it was a coincidence? Never heard anyone rule out murder for whistleblowing. How would they know?That's right. Seth got whacked before he could send it to them. Maybe they hire Guccifer 2.0.Is that why the DNC informant got whacked?
...again, WikiLeaks admitted they got their information from Gucifer, not Seth Rich.
That's a large leap to make... and is counter to what has been said from the people involved.
It's only a coincidence to people trying to tie the two things together. People get killed everyday, and very often are killed in Washington, D.C. There is a large amount of people involved with the DNC and they haven't been killed.
It was obvious I was calling you on your accusatory tone. It was mentioned long ago they would be investigating him, the elections, Hillary, etc. This is all news huh?What do you mean "admitted"? The only thing he's guilty of is not recommending charges.Comey just admitted he is under investigation for his acts of handling the Clinton email and server investigation...
He just said that he is under investigation for how he handled it. What do you need explained from that?
Typically you missed the point. He was going to leak the emails.How so? You think it was a coincidence? Never heard anyone rule out murder for whistleblowing. How would they know?That's right. Seth got whacked before he could send it to them. Maybe they hire Guccifer 2.0....again, WikiLeaks admitted they got their information from Gucifer, not Seth Rich.
That's a large leap to make... and is counter to what has been said from the people involved.
It's only a coincidence to people trying to tie the two things together. People get killed everyday, and very often are killed in Washington, D.C. There is a large amount of people involved with the DNC and they haven't been killed.
Really? Now, do you have a link for Obama saying he was good at droning people? I've never heard that report and I'll bet 70% of the people haven't.They were forced to report that stuff or be left behind. There was a time for about a week when the ONLY people reporting on Benghazi, the servers, and a host of other issues was when the outcry was so large they could not ignore it.That is not what I said. I said they would not hesitate. They have in the past, release classified information that was questionable with regard to harming the US government or putting lives in jeopardy. I have no links but going on memory. My point was that the media hates anyone not in agreement with their world view (particularly Republicans) and would not hesitate to do what they accuse the Russians of doing in order to harm those they disagree with.Yes, and he was clear that this was only his opinion. However, I know of no media outlet that would hesitate to publish information that puts lives at risk or hurt the government if it gives them a scoop on the competitors. In essence, I do no believe that the US media would hesitate to release classified information that would harm lives or the government if it similarly harmed a Republican no matter what office they held.
That is why I do not make any distinction between the media (of any country including this one) and wikileaks.
Please show where the U.S. media has released information like WikiLeaks has that has put American lives at risk. The last time I remember them doing it, they gave up the name of a field agent... and the shit hit the fan over it.
But that same media reported all the stuff about Hillary's servers and emails... and Benghazi... and Lynch's meeting with Bill on the plane... plenty of stuff that was not favorable for her.
You cannot really believe that the media ignores massive amounts of information and intentionally underreports, minimize reports on information damaging to the Democrats.
Have you noticed that the number of casualties reported by the media went unreported under Obama? Or whenever some moral issue comes up with a member of congress they neverr state they are a Demcorat but only by their title, whereas it would be stated right up front it was a Republican congressperson so that the whole world knew it.
It all adds up. Sorry, but harm to the US government or the lives of operatives would take a back seat if the media had an opportunity to take down a repbublican.
Do you doubt they would not hesistate if the could use it to take down Trump?
No, because it was reported that Obama said he was good at using drones to kill people. Do you really think a biased media would report that? Do you even understand the difference between reporting intel that paints people in a bad light and releasing intel that actually puts lives at risk? You don't seem to understand the significance of those two at all.
Really? Now, do you have a link for Obama saying he was good at droning people? I've never heard that report and I'll bet 70% of the people haven't.They were forced to report that stuff or be left behind. There was a time for about a week when the ONLY people reporting on Benghazi, the servers, and a host of other issues was when the outcry was so large they could not ignore it.That is not what I said. I said they would not hesitate. They have in the past, release classified information that was questionable with regard to harming the US government or putting lives in jeopardy. I have no links but going on memory. My point was that the media hates anyone not in agreement with their world view (particularly Republicans) and would not hesitate to do what they accuse the Russians of doing in order to harm those they disagree with.Please show where the U.S. media has released information like WikiLeaks has that has put American lives at risk. The last time I remember them doing it, they gave up the name of a field agent... and the shit hit the fan over it.
But that same media reported all the stuff about Hillary's servers and emails... and Benghazi... and Lynch's meeting with Bill on the plane... plenty of stuff that was not favorable for her.
You cannot really believe that the media ignores massive amounts of information and intentionally underreports, minimize reports on information damaging to the Democrats.
Have you noticed that the number of casualties reported by the media went unreported under Obama? Or whenever some moral issue comes up with a member of congress they neverr state they are a Demcorat but only by their title, whereas it would be stated right up front it was a Republican congressperson so that the whole world knew it.
It all adds up. Sorry, but harm to the US government or the lives of operatives would take a back seat if the media had an opportunity to take down a repbublican.
Do you doubt they would not hesistate if the could use it to take down Trump?
No, because it was reported that Obama said he was good at using drones to kill people. Do you really think a biased media would report that? Do you even understand the difference between reporting intel that paints people in a bad light and releasing intel that actually puts lives at risk? You don't seem to understand the significance of those two at all.
You have to understand what I am stating here. I know the difference, I know that the government makes exceptions for reporters, and I know that given the oopportunity the world media, and the US media, in particular, would not hesitate to do exactly what Wikileaks has and is doing if it brought down those they disagree with.
The entire thing is an outrage ONLY because it was perpetrated against Clinton. Every news outlet will and would do what Wikileaks has done if it meets their agenda.
I guess you miss the point. If a Republican would have said that, it would not be a couple of articles from rightwing sources buried in the mnituea of everyday news-cycles.Really? Now, do you have a link for Obama saying he was good at droning people? I've never heard that report and I'll bet 70% of the people haven't.They were forced to report that stuff or be left behind. There was a time for about a week when the ONLY people reporting on Benghazi, the servers, and a host of other issues was when the outcry was so large they could not ignore it.That is not what I said. I said they would not hesitate. They have in the past, release classified information that was questionable with regard to harming the US government or putting lives in jeopardy. I have no links but going on memory. My point was that the media hates anyone not in agreement with their world view (particularly Republicans) and would not hesitate to do what they accuse the Russians of doing in order to harm those they disagree with.
But that same media reported all the stuff about Hillary's servers and emails... and Benghazi... and Lynch's meeting with Bill on the plane... plenty of stuff that was not favorable for her.
You cannot really believe that the media ignores massive amounts of information and intentionally underreports, minimize reports on information damaging to the Democrats.
Have you noticed that the number of casualties reported by the media went unreported under Obama? Or whenever some moral issue comes up with a member of congress they neverr state they are a Demcorat but only by their title, whereas it would be stated right up front it was a Republican congressperson so that the whole world knew it.
It all adds up. Sorry, but harm to the US government or the lives of operatives would take a back seat if the media had an opportunity to take down a repbublican.
Do you doubt they would not hesistate if the could use it to take down Trump?
No, because it was reported that Obama said he was good at using drones to kill people. Do you really think a biased media would report that? Do you even understand the difference between reporting intel that paints people in a bad light and releasing intel that actually puts lives at risk? You don't seem to understand the significance of those two at all.
You have to understand what I am stating here. I know the difference, I know that the government makes exceptions for reporters, and I know that given the oopportunity the world media, and the US media, in particular, would not hesitate to do exactly what Wikileaks has and is doing if it brought down those they disagree with.
The entire thing is an outrage ONLY because it was perpetrated against Clinton. Every news outlet will and would do what Wikileaks has done if it meets their agenda.
This is even from the VERY left leaning Huffington Post.
Obama Told Aides He's 'Really Good At Killing People,' New Book 'Double Down' Claims | HuffPost
Obama brag, in new book: I’m ‘really good at killing people’ with dronesReally? Now, do you have a link for Obama saying he was good at droning people? genda.
I guess you miss the point. If a Republican would have said that, it would not be a couple of articles from rightwing sources buried in the mnituea of everyday news-cycles.Really? Now, do you have a link for Obama saying he was good at droning people? I've never heard that report and I'll bet 70% of the people haven't.They were forced to report that stuff or be left behind. There was a time for about a week when the ONLY people reporting on Benghazi, the servers, and a host of other issues was when the outcry was so large they could not ignore it.But that same media reported all the stuff about Hillary's servers and emails... and Benghazi... and Lynch's meeting with Bill on the plane... plenty of stuff that was not favorable for her.
You cannot really believe that the media ignores massive amounts of information and intentionally underreports, minimize reports on information damaging to the Democrats.
Have you noticed that the number of casualties reported by the media went unreported under Obama? Or whenever some moral issue comes up with a member of congress they neverr state they are a Demcorat but only by their title, whereas it would be stated right up front it was a Republican congressperson so that the whole world knew it.
It all adds up. Sorry, but harm to the US government or the lives of operatives would take a back seat if the media had an opportunity to take down a repbublican.
Do you doubt they would not hesistate if the could use it to take down Trump?
No, because it was reported that Obama said he was good at using drones to kill people. Do you really think a biased media would report that? Do you even understand the difference between reporting intel that paints people in a bad light and releasing intel that actually puts lives at risk? You don't seem to understand the significance of those two at all.
You have to understand what I am stating here. I know the difference, I know that the government makes exceptions for reporters, and I know that given the oopportunity the world media, and the US media, in particular, would not hesitate to do exactly what Wikileaks has and is doing if it brought down those they disagree with.
The entire thing is an outrage ONLY because it was perpetrated against Clinton. Every news outlet will and would do what Wikileaks has done if it meets their agenda.
This is even from the VERY left leaning Huffington Post.
Obama Told Aides He's 'Really Good At Killing People,' New Book 'Double Down' Claims | HuffPost
It would be top of the hour lead reporting that had 15 full minutes devoted to it for months at a time. Understand the difference now?
And I have to bail out of here. Have a good day.
Who, besides Rush and you, said that the actual vote itself was hacked?well that was an ongoing joke all of this time,,,,,"If Russia Interfered, then how come Hillary got more votes"......I remember when Rush said something I said about two weeks before I mentioned,,,,,how did russia know which states to where they could hack the election? right? I mean, there were about 20 states where it may have been too close to call,,,so maybe Russia already knew which four states to hack?,,,and where is the evidence that they got their hands on the ballots?im watching,, maybe someone needs to ask,,,,,if Russia tampered with the election in Trumps favor, then how come Hillary got more votes?
You need to stop looking at the popular vote and look at what matters, and that is the Electoral College. The best way to understand how to win an election you should read up on the Prohibition movement in the early 1900's and just how they were able to win the vote by not focusing on trying to get as many votes as possible, but playing the margins. They didn't spend time on people they knew were either hardcore against their movement, or those that were totally for their movement, but instead just those 5-10% that were on the fence that would eventually sway the entire vote.
As the saying goes, work smarter, not harder.
You keep going on with your false narrative......wouldnt u think that with so many video/hidden video cameras in the USA, that by now we would have footage of the russians messin with the ballots and chads?im wathing stuart smalley now,,,why hasnt he asked how the Russians were able to tamper with the ballots yet,,,his only concern is how much money Trump invested in Russian Vodka stock.
Comey said earlier that there is evidence that Russia has attempted to change vote numbers in other countries and that he feels they will try to do it in the future in the U.S.
Most folks don't even understand what these hearings are about. Such a waste of Taxpayer $. We already know Hillary Clinton will skate. She'll get away with everything. How the hell did that little perv Weiner get Top Secret material? I can tell you, if Trump had done anything like that, he would be crucified by the Democrats. But the Clintons are big players among the NWO Globalist Elites. She'll skate on it all. Bet on it.
Most folks don't even understand what these hearings are about. Such a waste of Taxpayer $. We already know Hillary Clinton will skate. She'll get away with everything. How the hell did that little perv Weiner get Top Secret material? I can tell you, if Trump had done anything like that, he would be crucified by the Democrats. But the Clintons are big players among the NWO Globalist Elites. She'll skate on it all. Bet on it.
They explained in detail how the emails got on Weiner's lap top. Huma forwarded them to it so he could print them out for her. Comey said he didn't believe Weiner read them, nor did he think Huma knew she was intentionally breaking the law.
I think someone should be punished for it... but from the sounds of things, Comey kind of made it known that the other legal issues Weiner is going through takes precedence over the emails.
