Two bullet holes in his chest...that's not suicide. As for what connection he had to the Clintons, he was scheduled for a meeting with Bill that afternoon....
Snopes offers no direct proof that any of these deaths are NOT suspicious. They merely offer up circumstantial evidence to dispute the circumstantial evidence that links the deaths to the Clintons. Do you not find it suspicious that so many people with knowledge of Bill's extra-marital sexual activities wind up dead?
Snopes declaration doesn't carry much weight. Take for example their analysis of the death of Mary Mahoney. She was an intern at the white house. It was announced by Mike Isikoff that a former intern was coming forward to testify about being sexually harassed by Bill Clinton. Three days later, Mary Mahoney and two coworkers were gunned down at the Starbucks where they worked. The police investigation determined that it was a "botched robbery". However, Mary was shot 5 times, including 1 shot to the back of the head. Nothing was actually taken from the Starbucks. Yet snopes declares this murder to be "false". Why? The person ultimately arrested claimed that Mary tried wrestling the gun from him. Here's more details about it.
You don't have a clue of what you're talking about. If someone is pulling a gun out and pointing it at police, they're clearly not a law abiding citizen, and would be considered a danger to society. Nobody would advocate standing down and walking away when presented with this situation. The only reason you can get away with advocating this position is because you already know the outcome of this particular instance. This was an extremely stupid move by Korryn Gaines. There's no reason whatsoever that could justify her pulling a gun on the police and resisting arrest. It's a completely stupid, boneheaded move on her part. She should win a Darwin Award for 2016.
Of course the cops would get blamed regardless of the outcome. Murder/Suicide? It's the cops' fault! She shoots first, kills a cop, then gets killed? It's the cops' fault for not handling the situation better! The police are in a no win situation at this point in time when dealing with black suspects. Because of all the anti-cop rhetoric being thrown around, people are disrespecting the police or resisting arrest more and more, making matters worse and worse.
He has changed the topic of conversation from the emails to "trump wants russia to hack us".
No, he didn't do that. The Democrat supporting mainstream media has done that. The server is no longer online, it is in the FBI's possession. It would be impossible to hack it now, and the media knows that, but they're going to spin the story as much as they can to try and knock Trump. The fact is, the Russians (and/or others) already hacked that server. Trump joking about them finding the emails is not a request for them to hack the server now, it's a suggestion that they already have and just need to find the missing emails among all the other data they stole.
...well, with all of the money the Clintons have raked in from foreign countries, and with HRC supporting the TPP which allows foreign corporations to bypass US law, shouldn't you be afraid of Hillary?
Think about this for one minute...the emails were hosted on Hillary's private server. The server WAS hacked. The server was subsequently wiped and then confiscated by the FBI, where it now resides, disconnected and turned off. It would therefore be IMPOSSIBLE for a foreign nation to cyber-attack the server in order to recover the emails. So what Trump was implying is that Russia already potentially has the 30,000 emails from the previous hack, and just needs to find them in the trove of material they stole. Duh!
Newsflash: He wasn't actually calling on Russia to actively hack anyone. He said he hopes they can find the missing emails. It was clearly a joke, and clearly not a request for Russia to hack federal government computer systems. But hey, feel free to feign outrage over it because he's not representing your team.
I've heard Hillary called a power-crazed pig often enough, and plenty of speculation about her being a lesbian, but I think that's the first time I've heard someone suggest she's actually a dude.
I think you're confusing "a press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration" with "Trump will cooperate with the press and answer all their questions". There's a big difference in how the media handles news about Republicans versus how they handle news about Democrats. It's almost like the media works for the Democrats and against the Republicans.
Yes, because 2012 marked a dramatic change in Russian behavior with it's neighbours! NOBODY saw the Russian aggression coming post 2012, not even Georgia!
Media spin. Here's the first of what happened, in 2015:
Bloomberg’s John Heilemann: “How do you feel about the David Duke quasi-endorsement?”
Trump: “I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement. I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.”
Heilemann: “Would you repudiate David Duke?”
Trump: “Sure, I would do that, if it made you feel better. I don’t know anything about him. Somebody told me yesterday, whoever he is, he did endorse me. Actually I don’t think it was an endorsement. He said I was absolutely the best of all of the candidates.”
Then the saga continues in 2016...
Feb 26th news conference:
Question: “How do you feel about the recent endorsement from David Duke?”
Trump: “I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?”
Feb 28th on CNN with Jake Tapper:
CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be ‘treason to your heritage.’ Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?”
Trump: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.”
Tapper: “But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don’t know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don’t want their support?”
Trump: “Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about. You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I would have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong.”
Tapper: “The Ku Klux Klan?”
Trump: “But you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know.”
Tapper: “Okay. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but”
Trump: “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.”
Tapper: “All right.”
Feb 29th on NBC's Today Show:
Trump: “I’m sitting in a house in Florida, with a very bad earpiece that they gave me, and you could hardly hear what he was saying. But what I heard was ‘various groups.’ And I don’t mind disavowing anybody and I disavowed David Duke. And I disavowed him the day before at a major news conference. I have no problem disavowing groups, but I’d at least like to know who they are. It would be very unfair to disavow a group if the group shouldn’t be disavowed. I have to know who the groups are. But I disavowed David Duke.”
So despite Trump stating in 2015, that he would disavow David Duke's endorsement, the media won't let it go. So in 2016 when AGAIN asked about it, he AGAIN disavows the endorsement. But of course, the MSM still won't let it go, and ask him again two days later. And because he claims to know nothing about the groups, and doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY
Of course you don't see how it's wrong. They do their due diligence to make sure the scandal won't hurt their election performance, not to make sure they're playing by the rules.
What promise was made? All the bus advertisement said was that "we send the EU £350 million per week, let's fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave". How is that misleading in the least? It's a suggestion on how to better spend British taxpayer money. It's not a promise, not a guarantee, not a commitment. There's no fact checking required here, unless the £350 million per week number is false. Why did this even get posted? Stupid crap.
She had aides COPY classified information from a non-networked, secure computer and email the details to her private email. It was a direct violation of security protocols that took effort to work around! It wasn't just forwarding emails from one account to another, it actually required copying from one computer to an external data storage device, and then copying onto an internet connected computer to send via email.
Incidentally, there are NO existing gun laws in the US that would have helped. Not even from the gun control happy state of California. Mateen had security clearance that would have enabled him to obtain guns regardless. This incident isn't a lax gun law issue. Mateen was an armed security guard. He would have even been able to get guns under strict Canadian gun laws.
Slashdot Mirror
And here's another: http://www.infowars.com/friend...
Two bullet holes in his chest...that's not suicide. As for what connection he had to the Clintons, he was scheduled for a meeting with Bill that afternoon....
I didn't realize Putin was running for the position of POTUS....
Apparently you don't have a firm grasp of it...
Snopes offers no direct proof that any of these deaths are NOT suspicious. They merely offer up circumstantial evidence to dispute the circumstantial evidence that links the deaths to the Clintons. Do you not find it suspicious that so many people with knowledge of Bill's extra-marital sexual activities wind up dead?
Snopes declaration doesn't carry much weight. Take for example their analysis of the death of Mary Mahoney. She was an intern at the white house. It was announced by Mike Isikoff that a former intern was coming forward to testify about being sexually harassed by Bill Clinton. Three days later, Mary Mahoney and two coworkers were gunned down at the Starbucks where they worked. The police investigation determined that it was a "botched robbery". However, Mary was shot 5 times, including 1 shot to the back of the head. Nothing was actually taken from the Starbucks. Yet snopes declares this murder to be "false". Why? The person ultimately arrested claimed that Mary tried wrestling the gun from him. Here's more details about it.
You don't have a clue of what you're talking about. If someone is pulling a gun out and pointing it at police, they're clearly not a law abiding citizen, and would be considered a danger to society. Nobody would advocate standing down and walking away when presented with this situation. The only reason you can get away with advocating this position is because you already know the outcome of this particular instance. This was an extremely stupid move by Korryn Gaines. There's no reason whatsoever that could justify her pulling a gun on the police and resisting arrest. It's a completely stupid, boneheaded move on her part. She should win a Darwin Award for 2016.
Of course the cops would get blamed regardless of the outcome. Murder/Suicide? It's the cops' fault! She shoots first, kills a cop, then gets killed? It's the cops' fault for not handling the situation better! The police are in a no win situation at this point in time when dealing with black suspects. Because of all the anti-cop rhetoric being thrown around, people are disrespecting the police or resisting arrest more and more, making matters worse and worse.
He has changed the topic of conversation from the emails to "trump wants russia to hack us".
No, he didn't do that. The Democrat supporting mainstream media has done that. The server is no longer online, it is in the FBI's possession. It would be impossible to hack it now, and the media knows that, but they're going to spin the story as much as they can to try and knock Trump. The fact is, the Russians (and/or others) already hacked that server. Trump joking about them finding the emails is not a request for them to hack the server now, it's a suggestion that they already have and just need to find the missing emails among all the other data they stole.
...well, with all of the money the Clintons have raked in from foreign countries, and with HRC supporting the TPP which allows foreign corporations to bypass US law, shouldn't you be afraid of Hillary?
Think about this for one minute...the emails were hosted on Hillary's private server. The server WAS hacked. The server was subsequently wiped and then confiscated by the FBI, where it now resides, disconnected and turned off. It would therefore be IMPOSSIBLE for a foreign nation to cyber-attack the server in order to recover the emails. So what Trump was implying is that Russia already potentially has the 30,000 emails from the previous hack, and just needs to find them in the trove of material they stole. Duh!
Newsflash: He wasn't actually calling on Russia to actively hack anyone. He said he hopes they can find the missing emails. It was clearly a joke, and clearly not a request for Russia to hack federal government computer systems. But hey, feel free to feign outrage over it because he's not representing your team.
I've heard Hillary called a power-crazed pig often enough, and plenty of speculation about her being a lesbian, but I think that's the first time I've heard someone suggest she's actually a dude.
I think you're confusing "a press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration" with "Trump will cooperate with the press and answer all their questions". There's a big difference in how the media handles news about Republicans versus how they handle news about Democrats. It's almost like the media works for the Democrats and against the Republicans.
Yes, because 2012 marked a dramatic change in Russian behavior with it's neighbours! NOBODY saw the Russian aggression coming post 2012, not even Georgia!
Not available in Canada...
Popcorn and Drinks delivered via drone to your door
Media spin. Here's the first of what happened, in 2015: Bloomberg’s John Heilemann: “How do you feel about the David Duke quasi-endorsement?” Trump: “I don’t need his endorsement; I certainly wouldn’t want his endorsement. I don’t need anyone’s endorsement.” Heilemann: “Would you repudiate David Duke?” Trump: “Sure, I would do that, if it made you feel better. I don’t know anything about him. Somebody told me yesterday, whoever he is, he did endorse me. Actually I don’t think it was an endorsement. He said I was absolutely the best of all of the candidates.” Then the saga continues in 2016... Feb 26th news conference: Question: “How do you feel about the recent endorsement from David Duke?” Trump: “I didn’t even know he endorsed me. David Duke endorsed me? Okay, all right. I disavow, okay?” Feb 28th on CNN with Jake Tapper: CNN’s Jake Tapper: “I want to ask you about the Anti-Defamation League, which this week called on you to publicly condemn unequivocally the racism of former KKK grand wizard David Duke, who recently said that voting against you at this point would be ‘treason to your heritage.’ Will you unequivocally condemn David Duke and say that you don’t want his vote or that of other white supremacists in this election?” Trump: “Well, just so you understand, I don’t know anything about David Duke. Okay? I don’t know anything about what you’re even talking about with white supremacy or white supremacists. So, I don’t know. I don’t know, did he endorse me or what’s going on, because, you know, I know nothing about David Duke. I know nothing about white supremacists. And so you’re asking me a question that I’m supposed to be talking about people that I know nothing about.” Tapper: “But I guess the question from the Anti-Defamation League is, even if you don’t know about their endorsement, there are these groups and individuals endorsing you. Would you just say unequivocally you condemn them and you don’t want their support?” Trump: “Well, I have to look at the group. I mean, I don’t know what group you’re talking about. You wouldn’t want me to condemn a group that I know nothing about. I would have to look. If you would send me a list of the groups, I will do research on them. And, certainly, I would disavow if I thought there was something wrong.” Tapper: “The Ku Klux Klan?” Trump: “But you may have groups in there that are totally fine, and it would be very unfair. So, give me a list of the groups, and I will let you know.” Tapper: “Okay. I mean, I’m just talking about David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan here, but” Trump: “I don’t know any — honestly, I don’t know David Duke. I don’t believe I have ever met him. I’m pretty sure I didn’t meet him. And I just don’t know anything about him.” Tapper: “All right.” Feb 29th on NBC's Today Show: Trump: “I’m sitting in a house in Florida, with a very bad earpiece that they gave me, and you could hardly hear what he was saying. But what I heard was ‘various groups.’ And I don’t mind disavowing anybody and I disavowed David Duke. And I disavowed him the day before at a major news conference. I have no problem disavowing groups, but I’d at least like to know who they are. It would be very unfair to disavow a group if the group shouldn’t be disavowed. I have to know who the groups are. But I disavowed David Duke.” So despite Trump stating in 2015, that he would disavow David Duke's endorsement, the media won't let it go. So in 2016 when AGAIN asked about it, he AGAIN disavows the endorsement. But of course, the MSM still won't let it go, and ask him again two days later. And because he claims to know nothing about the groups, and doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY
Of course you don't see how it's wrong. They do their due diligence to make sure the scandal won't hurt their election performance, not to make sure they're playing by the rules.
What promise was made? All the bus advertisement said was that "we send the EU £350 million per week, let's fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave". How is that misleading in the least? It's a suggestion on how to better spend British taxpayer money. It's not a promise, not a guarantee, not a commitment. There's no fact checking required here, unless the £350 million per week number is false. Why did this even get posted? Stupid crap.
She was sharing classified information with Blumenthal, someone the State Department expressly denied giving clearance to.
She had aides COPY classified information from a non-networked, secure computer and email the details to her private email. It was a direct violation of security protocols that took effort to work around! It wasn't just forwarding emails from one account to another, it actually required copying from one computer to an external data storage device, and then copying onto an internet connected computer to send via email.
Incidentally, there are NO existing gun laws in the US that would have helped. Not even from the gun control happy state of California. Mateen had security clearance that would have enabled him to obtain guns regardless. This incident isn't a lax gun law issue. Mateen was an armed security guard. He would have even been able to get guns under strict Canadian gun laws.
Maybe visiting a scenic pier with family? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or going shopping for deals after Christmas? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I hear running in the park can also be dangerous... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are unix, linux, android, mac OS X, and Chrome ransomware variants. Are you suggesting we all switch back to DOS?