Slashdot Mirror

Some of the wikileaks stuff can be cryptographically proven to have been modified before release (most likely by who ever gave the emails to assange). Just check the DKIP signatures located in the emails that have them, you can easily see that some of them indicate modification. Use opendkim and check yourself.

curl -s https://www.wikileaks.org/pode... | opendkim-testmsg
curl -s https://www.wikileaks.org/pode... | opendkim-testmsg
opendkim-testmsg: dkim_eom(): Bad signature

Voila, end of discussion.

Really? He was happy to call out Bush back in the day -

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Bus...

He was happy to call out the Iraq war. That doesn't really fit your claimed fact pattern very well when we look back to past leaks and not just to the current panic as the DNC's corruption is exposed.

I was surprised by Hillary getting full questions from CNN and topics from Fox before debates. I mean, I should know it's all just a sham. The media, the government, and the DNC are just a puppet show. Lies, brainwashing and propaganda. And democrats are totally fine with this because go blue team go.

I was surprised by Hillary getting full questions from CNN and topics from Fox before debates. I mean, I should know it's all just a sham. The media, the government, and the DNC are just a puppet show. Lies, brainwashing and propaganda. And democrats are totally fine with this because go blue team go.

Oh, I see, YOU get to select the source. Guess what? It doesn't work that way.

The link isn't for you, it's for anyone out there that can still objectively parse information. You're obviously too far gone to gain any understanding from it. Like most who are unable to refute the truth, you will simply attack the source rather than change your point of view.

Straight from wikileaks.

"Diversity"...

Right. Because the one email linked in your article is this. Oh, that's oh so damning. The rest of your article is built around O'Keefe garbage. The guy who built his career on selective editing and deception.

They've also just released some of Obama's emails where they're discussing picking positions with race and sex as the criteria

Link to the email. Not a right wing blog, not O'Keefe garbage, the actual email.

BTW, the first batch of Obama emails are out: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

They're boring, though. Wait for later dumps.

Also, please remember that it may be illegal to view the emails unless you have CNN authorization. You can learn a lot from CNN, like the fact that we already have congressional term limits. Someone might want to let Wikipedia know about that.

Where the $12 million from the King of Morocco went in the pay-for-play days as Secretary of State!

Not sure what she's going to do with a few bucks from a few random Twitter followers who let her charge their credit cards on demand when they can get million dollar birthday gifts from the wonderful country of Qatar:

QATAR
- Would like to see WJC "for five minutes" in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011.
- Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti - particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I'm collecting input from CF Haiti team.

Source

Related News:
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton...

Notes:
WJC = William Jefferson Clinton, better known as Bill Clinton

There were three kinds of "classified" documents in Clinton's email:

(1) Previously classified, now unclassified, but not all of the markings were fully removed as part of the declassification. They still had a (C) (for confidential) on the line item that had formerly been classified. There were only two of these and you can see them in the emails that the state department officially released, here they are hosted on wikileaks, but they were not released by wikileaks:
CALL TO PRESIDENT BANDA
KOFI ANNAN CALL SHEET
To be clear - these were the only documents with markings but they were not actually classified. The FBI director himself testified to that fact in front of the Senate - although at the time he said there were 3 documents, but that has since been corrected to two.

(2) Discussions of ongoing events that have been retroactively classified by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Classification, which in some cases, the Dept of State disputes is appropriate. Different agencies have different agendas with respect to classification - State tends to be less restrictive because they have to collaborate with non-US and uncleared partners, so over-classification inhibits their mission in ways that it does not for other agencies that are more insular.

(3) Documents that were highly classified (secret and top-secret) that had their markings removed. The origin of these documents was outside the state department and they were not solicited by Clinton or anyone else at State. As Secretary, if she wanted them she could have requested them internally. They were sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal who is a friend of Clinton but is not a government employee, he operates a "private intelligence service" with a focus on the middle east. Somebody removed the markings and gave those documents to Blumenthal. Most likely that person was an employee of the CIA. An investigation of that imbroglio is certain, but is unlikely to ever be made public because CIA.

There were three kinds of "classified" documents in Clinton's email:

(1) Previously classified, now unclassified, but not all of the markings were fully removed as part of the declassification. They still had a (C) (for confidential) on the line item that had formerly been classified. There were only two of these and you can see them in the emails that the state department officially released, here they are hosted on wikileaks, but they were not released by wikileaks:
CALL TO PRESIDENT BANDA
KOFI ANNAN CALL SHEET
To be clear - these were the only documents with markings but they were not actually classified. The FBI director himself testified to that fact in front of the Senate - although at the time he said there were 3 documents, but that has since been corrected to two.

(2) Discussions of ongoing events that have been retroactively classified by the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Classification, which in some cases, the Dept of State disputes is appropriate. Different agencies have different agendas with respect to classification - State tends to be less restrictive because they have to collaborate with non-US and uncleared partners, so over-classification inhibits their mission in ways that it does not for other agencies that are more insular.

(3) Documents that were highly classified (secret and top-secret) that had their markings removed. The origin of these documents was outside the state department and they were not solicited by Clinton or anyone else at State. As Secretary, if she wanted them she could have requested them internally. They were sent to her by Sidney Blumenthal who is a friend of Clinton but is not a government employee, he operates a "private intelligence service" with a focus on the middle east. Somebody removed the markings and gave those documents to Blumenthal. Most likely that person was an employee of the CIA. An investigation of that imbroglio is certain, but is unlikely to ever be made public because CIA.

The fact she gets full questions from CNN and topics from Fox? Yes, burn the witch.

The fact she gets full questions from CNN and topics from Fox? Yes, burn the witch.

I did a google search for the source of that quote. Just one hit. So, as far as I can tell, Hillary originally said that in a slashdot post on October 13, 2016: https://science.slashdot.org/c...

(Apparently she doesn't have an account, though, because she was posting as AC.)

I googled for "hillary wikileaks compliant uneducated" and, eventually, ended up here. It's an email from someone named "Bill Ivey" at globalculturalstrategies.com talking to John Podesta about how to deal with Trump's celebrity and TV air time. There's a quote in there about unawareness and compliance:

And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong but compliance is obviously fading rapidly.

Not a quote from Hillary, but a quote from a discussion her campaign manager had with what is presumably a consultant firm they use for strategizing.

from parent post:

Preventing the distribution of information that Hillary Clinton made speeches where she said in private the same things as she said in public? ..."

from one of Hillary Clinton's paid Wall Street speeches:

Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.” You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today.

Not only does Hillary Clinton advocate in private paid meetings to Wall Street bankers policies opposed her own public positions, she confesses in one of those meetings that she does. The contradictions between her public statements and private statements made to Wall Street bankers are why she suppressed the release of transcripts or recordings of those paid speeches during the primary and why their release by Wikileaks has been politically damaging to her.

It seems that Hillarys campaing is usign extremely dirty tricks. Not just paying to cause violence on Trumps rallies, bussing people to vote several times, but also this pedophilia/Russian 1 million dollars smear against Assange:

https://sli.mg/20GoW2

https://i.sli.mg/RauCjp.jpg

https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/...

I recommend you to study this even more closely, but here are some of the completely unbelievable things in this smear attempt against Assange:

"Their yellowpages site says they have been in business 5 years. http://www.yellowpages.com/hou...
Ok so how many times has this link been shared on reddit? I googled the URL specific to this site, and it's only come up three times. All within the last 24 hours."

"This shady dating site claims to be the "ONLY Dating Site to ever partner with the UN Initiative" (Now that's fucking odd...) AND THEY JUST GOT KICKED OUT OF THE UN FIVE DAYS AGO?!?!"

"Todd Hammonds LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/to... (It's fucking nothing) But it does say he lives in SF. I'm in the Bay Area also, I could pay a visit to offices if we can actually find any legitimate offices...
Their Dating Site Eventbrite page. Only one event for the fastest growing dating website that has married 3,000 people since 2011???
Here is the LinkedIn of "Kate Hogan," this is the person who wrote the "Press Release" about ToddAndClare accusing Assange of sexual misconduct. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ka...
Of course she's got only 1 connection, and no other real information anywhere. Also, the phone number listed in the press release rings twice and then immediately disconnects. But it doesn't give a recording, it just says "call failed" I've never really experienced that. Anyway you'd think that someone who just put out a press release regarding the UN and Assange would have a working phone!
http://www.prweb.com/releases/...
Here's their bullshit subreddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/todda... (No posts in three months)
Here's their weird "book" that they wrote about starting their company 5 years ago. Notice how every review is exactly 189 days old and all are very short and positive. This is shilling no doubt about it. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/..."

"How can their site, registered 20 sep 2015, claim 3000 marriages by November 2 2015? http://m.imgur.com/6BqmZPY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=..."

"Thanks to /u/ChrissFinn for linking the email from Wikileaks that ToddAndClare originally sent to Assange to get all this started. They offer him $1 million dollars to do some sort of commercial. This is obviously a scam because they don't have a million dollars, they don't even have a legitimate mailing address or working fucking phone numbers! This was a set up from the very beginning!"

" all users images are cropped and mirrored and can be reverse google image searched to other locations. Plus none of the employees seem to exist. Email between Jullian and T&C.com https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/... -Honeypot to get him to accept russian funds and discredit his leaks, failed, so they accused him of pedophilia instead. When searched for. The ToddandClare business location is actually identical to this company "Premise Data Corporation" https://local.yahoo.com/info-1... Here you can view its team page http://www.premise.com/ourteam... Who's board of directors has guess who "Larry Summers" Who goes by "Lawrence Summers" in "The Center for American Progress" Superpac

Don't fall for that very crudely made smearing attempt of Assange. It is incredible that they are trying to smear with this as it doesn't stand up under close scrutiny. Check for yourself about some of the details and how this is connected to Hillary Clinton:

GUYS. THE SHILLS ARE UP TO SOMETHING WITH ASSANGE! NOT A DRILL. PLEASE LOOK! FRAMING IN PROGRESS!
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_D...

Background and Documents on Attempts to Frame Assange as a Pedophile and Russian spy
https://www.wikileaks.org/Back...

WikiLeaks on Twitter: "Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

WikiLeaks on Twitter: "Internet sleuths connect Clinton to mysterious intelligence contractor associated with Assange false accusations 2
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...

He uses in-person meetings, phone calls, paper documents, and a Boeing 767.

He also tweets to the general public, of course.

Hillary, on the other hand, needs ten people to help her tweet. LOL

OK

Then if that is junk what about this ?

more corruption
https://wikileaks.org/Backgrou...

or this
Them flying the agitators around
https://i.redd.it/320s80yu98sx...

or the dude just resigned/fired because of it
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeef...

And that is *just* today. Every thing this group does is slimy. Everything.

There's actually a much less thoroughly linked or explained version of the story that beat mine. I wonder which one they'll post, if any? I guess I should've quoted the full story, though so it doesn't get burred.

Democrat Operatives Caused Violence at Trump Rallies, Framed Sanders Supporters

A new video has come out detailing how Democratic operatives created violence at Trump rallies. You may remember that they then framed Sanders supporters for those protests. This video is notable because one of the operatives, Zulema Rodriguez, can be identified in videos of the Arizona protests at 17:35 in this independent video as well as at 10:30 in the first video link. Furthermore, you look at the FEC records of disbursements to her and see that she was paid by MoveOn.org. Finally, this again can be corroborated with the Wikileaks dump, specifically this email. For those too lazy to browse all the links, you can see Zulema's appearance in both videos in this image and note that it's the same person down to the tiny mole on her chest.

Sources:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - Confession caught on video for Zulema and others.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/san... - Old news report showing the 'split' between real & fake Sanders supporters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - Old video showing this lady at the AZ protests (and lying, etc.)
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb... - FED disbursement data showing her payments from MoveOn.org
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... - Wikileaks email regarding the strategy they were using.
https://i.sli.mg/dNBRek.png - A handy image to help you compare her appearance in the confession & the AZ protest videos. Note the same mole on her chest.

You base that on your own biases, not on evidence. This is because evidence says that Hillary's team has been inciting violence here. I mean, we have videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

And if you look up the woman in the video, well, you can see that she's on Hillary's payroll. I mean, unless you're going to say the FEC is lying now? Just look at how they paid her to be at the protests and what she did there:

https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb...

And here's the leak to tie it together: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...

It's on video. We saw her in the Arizona protests, blocking the road. It was in the media. How, pray tell, are you going to make this one out to be a false flag?

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

And what of those who only read about her Wall Street antics vs. those who learn about all of her criminal history?

As a whole, she comes across as a lying, corrupt bitch who is untouchable.

And that's only what Congress thinks of her.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

And what of those who only read about her Wall Street antics vs. those who learn about all of her criminal history?

As a whole, she comes across as a lying, corrupt bitch who is untouchable.

And that's only what Congress thinks of her.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

And what of those who only read about her Wall Street antics vs. those who learn about all of her criminal history?

As a whole, she comes across as a lying, corrupt bitch who is untouchable.

And that's only what Congress thinks of her.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

Which is why she was so willing to release them. Or not.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

Which is why she was so willing to release them. Or not.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

Which is why she was so willing to release them. Or not.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

are only likely to bother people who only read Assange's carefully-chosen excerpts, rather than those who actually read them as a whole. As a whole she comes across very well in them.

Nope. We've got ample proof that Clinton is dirty. That she accuses others of the very thing her own team does, like cozying up with Putin. Not a lot in terms of Trump, other than some unsubstantiated claims of sexual misconduct (the very conduct that Bill and Hillary love to simply laugh off as a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy).

She keeps pushing the narrative that Trump is all cozy with the Russians even though her campaign adviser John Podesta owned a big chunk of a Putin-backed company. So yeah - she's a liar, and that's dirty.

Right. The US intelligence services are so dumb as to base decisions entirely on what time zone an attack took place. Got it. I love how they're considered both omniscient and omnipotent with their fingers in every last system, and yet utter morons at the same time.

Concerning "the leaks are still the leaks": the overwhelming majority of people, 99.999%, are not actually reading "the leaks". They're reading random excerpts selected out of massive volumes of text designed to try to make Clinton look bad. Virtually nobody is reading context or anything else that was said. IMHO, they're very interesting geopolitical discussions, if you're at all wonkish.

Note that even in these full versions, the leakers carefully "highlighted" the gotchas to make sure you don't miss them. And it's also funny what they decided would be a gotcha and what wouldn't. For example, they highlighted the section where she discussed being forced to go on a "Clinton Apology Tour" due to the Manning leaks, from one leader to the next who had been characterized by any embassy in less than flattering terms - even though these people actually were as corrupt and whatnot as the embassy memos described. But they didn't see fit to highlight her joke about giving a red state to China right before that:

(Context: negotiations with China over the South China Sea)

SECRETARY CLINTON: "... I think that -- you know, one of the greatest arguments that I had on a continuing basis was with my Chinese counterparts about their claim. And I made the point at one point in the argument that, you know, you can call it whatever you want to call it. You don't have a claim to all of it. I said, by that argument, you know, the United States should claim all of the Pacific. We liberated it, we defended it. We have as much claim to all of the Pacific. And we could call it the American Sea, and it could go from the West Coast of California all the way to the Philippines. And, you know, my counterpart sat up very straight and goes, well, you can't do that. And I said, well, we have as much right to claim that as you do. I mean, you claim it based on pottery shards from, you know, some fishing vessel that ran aground in an atoll somewhere. You know, we had conveys of military strength. We discovered Japan for Heaven sakes. I mean, we did all of these things.

MR. BLANKFEIN: These are more technical conversations than I thought they would be.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes. And then he says to me, well, you know, we'll claim Hawaii. And I said, yeah, but we have proof we bought it. Do you have proof you brought any of these places you're claiming? So we got into the nitty-gritty of --

MR. BLANKFEIN: But they have to take New Jersey.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. We're going to give them a red state.

(Laughter and applause.)

(That said, she does however have a number of good things to say about most of her Republican colleagues - she only seems to have a trouble with the Tea Party and the sort of candidates they push / pressure they put on moderate candidates to tag to their line, and goes into a number of times where the pressure they've put on their congressmen had a negative impact on US relationships with other countries)

In general, though, while yes there are political angles in there that one can take, most of it is purely policy talk, in a great level of depth. Very much worth a read.

Right. The US intelligence services are so dumb as to base decisions entirely on what time zone an attack took place. Got it. I love how they're considered both omniscient and omnipotent with their fingers in every last system, and yet utter morons at the same time.

Concerning "the leaks are still the leaks": the overwhelming majority of people, 99.999%, are not actually reading "the leaks". They're reading random excerpts selected out of massive volumes of text designed to try to make Clinton look bad. Virtually nobody is reading context or anything else that was said. IMHO, they're very interesting geopolitical discussions, if you're at all wonkish.

Note that even in these full versions, the leakers carefully "highlighted" the gotchas to make sure you don't miss them. And it's also funny what they decided would be a gotcha and what wouldn't. For example, they highlighted the section where she discussed being forced to go on a "Clinton Apology Tour" due to the Manning leaks, from one leader to the next who had been characterized by any embassy in less than flattering terms - even though these people actually were as corrupt and whatnot as the embassy memos described. But they didn't see fit to highlight her joke about giving a red state to China right before that:

(Context: negotiations with China over the South China Sea)

SECRETARY CLINTON: "... I think that -- you know, one of the greatest arguments that I had on a continuing basis was with my Chinese counterparts about their claim. And I made the point at one point in the argument that, you know, you can call it whatever you want to call it. You don't have a claim to all of it. I said, by that argument, you know, the United States should claim all of the Pacific. We liberated it, we defended it. We have as much claim to all of the Pacific. And we could call it the American Sea, and it could go from the West Coast of California all the way to the Philippines. And, you know, my counterpart sat up very straight and goes, well, you can't do that. And I said, well, we have as much right to claim that as you do. I mean, you claim it based on pottery shards from, you know, some fishing vessel that ran aground in an atoll somewhere. You know, we had conveys of military strength. We discovered Japan for Heaven sakes. I mean, we did all of these things.

MR. BLANKFEIN: These are more technical conversations than I thought they would be.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes. And then he says to me, well, you know, we'll claim Hawaii. And I said, yeah, but we have proof we bought it. Do you have proof you brought any of these places you're claiming? So we got into the nitty-gritty of --

MR. BLANKFEIN: But they have to take New Jersey.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. We're going to give them a red state.

(Laughter and applause.)

(That said, she does however have a number of good things to say about most of her Republican colleagues - she only seems to have a trouble with the Tea Party and the sort of candidates they push / pressure they put on moderate candidates to tag to their line, and goes into a number of times where the pressure they've put on their congressmen had a negative impact on US relationships with other countries)

In general, though, while yes there are political angles in there that one can take, most of it is purely policy talk, in a great level of depth. Very much worth a read.

Right. The US intelligence services are so dumb as to base decisions entirely on what time zone an attack took place. Got it. I love how they're considered both omniscient and omnipotent with their fingers in every last system, and yet utter morons at the same time.

Concerning "the leaks are still the leaks": the overwhelming majority of people, 99.999%, are not actually reading "the leaks". They're reading random excerpts selected out of massive volumes of text designed to try to make Clinton look bad. Virtually nobody is reading context or anything else that was said. IMHO, they're very interesting geopolitical discussions, if you're at all wonkish.

Note that even in these full versions, the leakers carefully "highlighted" the gotchas to make sure you don't miss them. And it's also funny what they decided would be a gotcha and what wouldn't. For example, they highlighted the section where she discussed being forced to go on a "Clinton Apology Tour" due to the Manning leaks, from one leader to the next who had been characterized by any embassy in less than flattering terms - even though these people actually were as corrupt and whatnot as the embassy memos described. But they didn't see fit to highlight her joke about giving a red state to China right before that:

(Context: negotiations with China over the South China Sea)

SECRETARY CLINTON: "... I think that -- you know, one of the greatest arguments that I had on a continuing basis was with my Chinese counterparts about their claim. And I made the point at one point in the argument that, you know, you can call it whatever you want to call it. You don't have a claim to all of it. I said, by that argument, you know, the United States should claim all of the Pacific. We liberated it, we defended it. We have as much claim to all of the Pacific. And we could call it the American Sea, and it could go from the West Coast of California all the way to the Philippines. And, you know, my counterpart sat up very straight and goes, well, you can't do that. And I said, well, we have as much right to claim that as you do. I mean, you claim it based on pottery shards from, you know, some fishing vessel that ran aground in an atoll somewhere. You know, we had conveys of military strength. We discovered Japan for Heaven sakes. I mean, we did all of these things.

MR. BLANKFEIN: These are more technical conversations than I thought they would be.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes, yes. And then he says to me, well, you know, we'll claim Hawaii. And I said, yeah, but we have proof we bought it. Do you have proof you brought any of these places you're claiming? So we got into the nitty-gritty of --

MR. BLANKFEIN: But they have to take New Jersey.

(Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, no, no. We're going to give them a red state.

(Laughter and applause.)

(That said, she does however have a number of good things to say about most of her Republican colleagues - she only seems to have a trouble with the Tea Party and the sort of candidates they push / pressure they put on moderate candidates to tag to their line, and goes into a number of times where the pressure they've put on their congressmen had a negative impact on US relationships with other countries)

In general, though, while yes there are political angles in there that one can take, most of it is purely policy talk, in a great level of depth. Very much worth a read.

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

You claim that I made up those statements

No. From the start I said maybe you didn't made up those statements. Right from the start I claimed it was either you making it up, or that you quoted someone. But you keep claiming that i said you made it up. I never claimed it was you, I claimed it was you or someone else (duh), but you keep putting words on my mouth.

If you cannot mount a compelling case (...) then you don't have a case, and HRC is presumed innocent.

If you look for information yourself, the chances of getting an understanding of things and believing your understanding is better. I wrongly assumed you wanted that and not just an excuse to say she's innocent. That's why the nudge and not the links list. So here is the case.
Benghazi:
Search terms on youtube: Hillary Clinton Benghazi (as stated before), but you refused to search .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaENYYQIAKE (this is a short one with some points);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUObFqU5cgE (another one focused on the troublesome parts);
full hearing.
On supporting terrorism:
Hillary's email saying Qatar and the Saudis are financing terrorism
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL - not directly related to Clinton but important to understand ISIS;
Military intervention in Syria email from 2011 - also not Clinton, but to give an understanding of what the "moderate rebels" the USG under Obama supports are supposed to do ("commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within");
The three above are to make it explicit that everyone (in her circles) knows who the Saudis are and what the regime change the US is pursuing does to people. It is common knowledge.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department;
Contributor and Grantor Information from Clinton Foundation the Saudis donated between 10 and 25M;
Qatar giving 1M to Bill Clinton (Qatar, the ones she says are financing terrorism);

The secret information mishandling should be one of those clear cut cases of too powerful to answer to justice. They clearly said that the reason they would not prosecute was lack of intent, not lack of proof it was done.
Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department (short video)
The actual FBI statement on the case. They didn't say she didn't commit the crime, just that no prosecutor would prosecute. They also explain what the crimes would be in the case ("Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."). That's why sometimes we are not sure what the crime is. Because US law is overly intricate.

Other than admission that the email scandal was, in fact, a real scandal and that the Clinton team knew that what they were doing was wrong. Or coordinating with the media to spike damaging stories. Or how the San Bernadino shooting situation would have been better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.

Other than admission that the email scandal was, in fact, a real scandal and that the Clinton team knew that what they were doing was wrong. Or coordinating with the media to spike damaging stories. Or how the San Bernadino shooting situation would have been better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.

Other than admission that the email scandal was, in fact, a real scandal and that the Clinton team knew that what they were doing was wrong. Or coordinating with the media to spike damaging stories. Or how the San Bernadino shooting situation would have been better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter.

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Do you think that any of the following will change some minds?

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit
• is preferred by established Republicans because they prefer a Bush-Clinton dynasty

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

Because you want a Bush-Clinton dynasty run by a person who

• went beyond their duties as a lawyer to defend a first-degree rape of a 12 year old
• smeared and destroyed the lives of Bill Clinton's rape victims
• helped Russia gain control of 20% of all U.S. uranium and then support war with them
• has Parkinson's disease, which can include dementia, which includes changes in memory, concentration & judgment, delusions, especially paranoid ideas, depression, irritability and anxiety
• Runs an international money laundering scheme
• uses the immoral 13 Rules for Radicals that will defeat any opponent regardless of political positions
• used the Benghazi scandal as distraction from the national security breach on her insecure e-mail server
• corrupted the FBI and other government agencies to avoid jail
• part of a campaign that conspires to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry, demeans government, and drops civics
• is very angry and hard on her staff, including the Secret Service agents that protect her
• treats public employees as servants and hates them
• is racist and continues to run a racist campaign
• circulated a picture of Obama dressed as a Somali elder in an effort to gin up racial fears
• ripped off Haitians in their time of need in order to spend donated money on her friends
• wants to go along with a plan to destroy Western democracies so her donors can make a profit

Bullshit once again.

Email

Right there it is for everyone to see. I said bullshit because that is what you are peddling. I've ACTUALLY read hundreds of her emails, unlike you. I actually know their content instead of falsely claiming they were lost. Look at the timing of this email, compare to the time her son in law made the investments, and then show me her looking at the Greece bailout at ANY OTHER TIME. There is no point in prosecuting this because her BRIBERY from RUSSIA about approval of selling them URANIUM is so more outrageous, it is on the level of a super James Bond villain, that it is insignificant in comparison. It would be like charging a serial murderer with j-walking.

It wasn't part of her job, she didn't care. She called in a favour from an IMF official, and had to forward it on to understand it. The appearance of inappropriate behaviour at her level is unacceptable, period. The fact she went through the trouble to cover it up and lie about it shows "INTENT", which is how prosecutors prove intent.

Clinton is a corrupt lying bitch. Anyone who even tries to spin anything different looks like an idiot to everyone else and we are laughing at you.

If I were as crude as you, I would be responding with your trademark "bullshit" response right now. Unless you're talking about something else (wherein you should probably reference it), you never read that email because it was lost (at least the relevant parts, aka the attachment). The only writing from Clinton on the subject was a hasty "Pls print two copies." Is that what you call reading things she's written? Furthermore,, the supposedly "damning" thing is a chain-of-guilt. Nothing at all about Clinton giving information to her son it law, it's "Sullivan gave the info to someone else, who works at the Clinton foundation, and Chelsea works for the Clinton foundation too, and her husband was investing in Greece, therefore Hillary Clinton is a corrupt scumbag"). I'm rather surprised that with all of the stuff Clinton had to read on Greece as part of her job that they couldn't find something worse than this to try to tar her with. The most "corrupt" action that's come forth in the Wikileaks releases concerning Clinton and Mezvinsky themselves is that she forwarded an email from him to another government official. I know, stop the presses.

Back to the original topic: I recommend that people read things she wrote and form their own opinions from them. You clearly did not do that. It's something that very, very few people here commenting about the emails have actually done. They just repeat the "gotchas" that the leaks were designed to elicit.

Here's my favorite email. It's older, but from Debbie Wasserman Schultz herself. Don't know how I'd react in her situation. but it makes me laugh.

> It's amazing how the echo chamber distorted this,

I'm not amazed any more. Every single time I drill down into a Clinton "scandal" it turns out to be bullshit. The republicans have literally spent hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars trying to find something, anything, on the Clintons for decades. There were nine, NINE benghazi investigations alone. But the actual facts never support the hyperbole.

Hell, even the email "scandal" is bullshit. If you watch Comey's senate testimony (excerpted and elaborated here) he says there were three emails (since corrected to two) with partial markings (literally just a (c) next to a single paragraph) and there was ALSO material that was classified. But what he doesn't mention is that the "(c)" emails were already declassified when they were sent to her and for proof you can find those emails in the ones that were officially released by the state department - if they were actually classified they would not have been released because simply being exposed at some point does not automatically declassify a document.

People are going around saying that Comey gave Clinton a pass despite the evidence when in fact he misrepresented the evidence by conflating unrelated facts. He wasn't her friend, he was actually trying to fuck her up in the court of public opinion.

And that's pretty much the way every single clinton "scandal" has gone down. The Clintons are the personification of Cardinal Richelieu's line, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." And all the people hereabouts who love that quote for what it reveals about the way world works can't even see it when its right in front of them...