|
|
Post by staypuft39 on Nov 4, 2016 12:48:04 GMT -5
Thanks for putting the details straight. Does not change anything in principle. If the details are correct it's not a proper conspiracy theory. And status quo maybe bad choice of words - meant that Trump probably won't get much of anything done while Clinton sadly will, but you already understood that. Let me throw this at you then. It is being reported that on Huma's laptop are notes that show that Huma, Hillary and her camp absolutely knew Anthony Weiner was sexting underage girls and did nothing about it. In short it wasn't about those underage women, it was about protecting Huma and in connection, protecting Hillary. How any campaign could have knowledge of such an act and say absolutely NOTHING to the authorities is beyond reprehensible and does not deserve to be rewarded with the Presidency of the United States...even if Trump is the alternative. Any links for this info? Feel like a sleaze googling "Weiner underage girls Hillary" and not finding a damn thing about it. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Nov 4, 2016 13:42:44 GMT -5
Thanks for putting the details straight. Does not change anything in principle. If the details are correct it's not a proper conspiracy theory. And status quo maybe bad choice of words - meant that Trump probably won't get much of anything done while Clinton sadly will, but you already understood that. Let me throw this at you then. It is being reported that on Huma's laptop are notes that show that Huma, Hillary and her camp absolutely knew Anthony Weiner was sexting underage girls and did nothing about it. In short it wasn't about those underage women, it was about protecting Huma and in connection, protecting Hillary. How any campaign could have knowledge of such an act and say absolutely NOTHING to the authorities is beyond reprehensible and does not deserve to be rewarded with the Presidency of the United States...even if Trump is the alternative. Source for this information? |
|
|
|
Post by karma4u on Nov 4, 2016 14:39:00 GMT -5
Probably Breitbart and InfoWars...  |
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Nov 4, 2016 16:18:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Nov 4, 2016 16:22:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by staypuft39 on Nov 4, 2016 16:44:34 GMT -5
Firstly, I have not seen any note that they were tracking his texts. That's not in these articles you posted, as far as I can tell. Where are you getting that from? From what I can see, Podesta got an e-mail stating that the police were investigating Weiner's interaction with a 17 year old. THE POLICE. In your earlier post you were saying that Hillary's campaign is to blame for not "alerting the authorities". Seems like the authorities were the ones that alerted the campaign, according to this: "News of an investigation into Weiner’s alleged messaging with a 17-year-old girl was passed onto John Podesta" followed by: “Two officers from the New Castle County Police Department arrived at the girl’s home around 4:30 p.m. and asked to speak with the girl’s mother about the daughter’s contact with Weiner. Another officer appeared at the home a short time later.” So what exactly is the problem here if the police clearly investigated thoroughly? |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Nov 4, 2016 16:45:12 GMT -5
Yea, need some more than the New York Post and Radar Online for credibility here. How about the National Enquirer? Seriously, there needs to be more than this. |
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Nov 4, 2016 16:52:33 GMT -5
So I guess if it were the New York Times that would be okay but not the New York Post? If you look around, much of the left wing media is reporting NONE of the leaks from the FBI, for very obvious reasons, they don't want their readers to realize how bad this FBI investigation/inquiry is for Hillary, especially just before the election. So naturally the right wing folks are going to report on the leaks and the left wing won't. That doesn't make what is being reported untrue, it is a matter of bias.
Oh I should also note that it was originally the National Enquirer who broke the original story of Anthony Weiner sexting. So be careful how you characterize certain media organizations. The Enquirer's story led to Weiner resigning his seat.
*EDIT actually it was the second publication. They did nail Jesse Jackson having an extra-marital affair, they broke the John Edwards extra-marital affair, they broke Tiger Woods and Rachel Uchitel story, broke the story that Rush Limbaugh had an illegal cleaning lady and drug abuse problem, broke the story of Charlie Sheen and him being HIV positive and more. *
|
|
|
|
Post by staypuft39 on Nov 4, 2016 16:55:35 GMT -5
So I guess if it were the New York Times that would be okay but not the New York Post? If you look around, much of the left wing media is reporting NONE of the leaks from the FBI, for very obvious reasons, they don't want their readers to realize how bad this FBI investigation/inquiry is for Hillary, especially just before the election. So naturally the right wing folks are going to report on the leaks and the left wing won't. That doesn't make what is being reported untrue, it is a matter of bias. Oh I should also note that it was originally the National Enquirer who broke the original story of Anthony Weiner sexting. So be careful how you characterize certain media organizations. The Enquirer's story led to Weiner resigning his seat. Even if most of my post is mostly skipped over, would love to know: So what exactly is the problem here if the police clearly investigated thoroughly? |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Nov 4, 2016 16:55:38 GMT -5
So I guess if it were the New York Times that would be okay but not the New York Post? If you look around, much of the left wing media is reporting NONE of the leaks from the FBI, for very obvious reasons, they don't want their readers to realize how bad this FBI investigation/inquiry is for Hillary, especially just before the election. So naturally the right wing folks are going to report on the leaks and the left wing won't. That doesn't make what is being reported untrue, it is a matter of bias. Repeat: Seriously, there needs to be more than this. |
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Nov 4, 2016 17:05:14 GMT -5
So I guess if it were the New York Times that would be okay but not the New York Post? If you look around, much of the left wing media is reporting NONE of the leaks from the FBI, for very obvious reasons, they don't want their readers to realize how bad this FBI investigation/inquiry is for Hillary, especially just before the election. So naturally the right wing folks are going to report on the leaks and the left wing won't. That doesn't make what is being reported untrue, it is a matter of bias. Oh I should also note that it was originally the National Enquirer who broke the original story of Anthony Weiner sexting. So be careful how you characterize certain media organizations. The Enquirer's story led to Weiner resigning his seat. Even if most of my post is mostly skipped over, would love to know: So what exactly is the problem here if the police clearly investigated thoroughly? There is no problem with the police investigating. What is being purported is that the Clinton camp knew BEFORE the police started investigating. After his first time he was caught, the Clinton campaign realized that he could be a liability and started tracking his texts. What was reported on Fox (yeah Nevada.. Fox, not CNN or MSNBC) was that the investigators said the Clinton camp knew about the second woman. There was no direct evidence for the third but speculation allows if you are tracking the texts and know about #2, you probably are still tracking him for #3.  |
|
|
|
Post by staypuft39 on Nov 4, 2016 17:10:03 GMT -5
Even if most of my post is mostly skipped over, would love to know: So what exactly is the problem here if the police clearly investigated thoroughly? There is no problem with the police investigating. What is being purported is that the Clinton camp knew BEFORE the police started investigating. After his first time he was caught, the Clinton campaign realized that he could be a liability and started tracking his texts. What was reported on Fox (yeah Nevada.. Fox, not CNN or MSNBC) was that the investigators said the Clinton camp knew about the second woman. There was no direct evidence for the third but speculation allows if you are tracking the texts and know about #2, you probably are still tracking him for #3. Where is that purported? What I see in those articles is that the police investigated the first 17 year old in 2011 (the quotes I posted), then the campaign found out. And again, where does it say it was tracking his texts? No mention in the articles. It also doesn't mention what age the second woman is, so you'd think they were of age. Unless you know better??? You can write all you want, quotes are slightly better. |
|
|
|
Post by mcbogga on Nov 5, 2016 0:36:08 GMT -5
Thanks for putting the details straight. Does not change anything in principle. If the details are correct it's not a proper conspiracy theory. And status quo maybe bad choice of words - meant that Trump probably won't get much of anything done while Clinton sadly will, but you already understood that. Let me throw this at you then. It is being reported that on Huma's laptop are notes that show that Huma, Hillary and her camp absolutely knew Anthony Weiner was sexting underage girls and did nothing about it. In short it wasn't about those underage women, it was about protecting Huma and in connection, protecting Hillary. How any campaign could have knowledge of such an act and say absolutely NOTHING to the authorities is beyond reprehensible and does not deserve to be rewarded with the Presidency of the United States...even if Trump is the alternative. What? You think I'm pro Clinton? Definitely not. I think there is a slightly larger chance of the world burning with Clinton than with Trump, but otherwise I don't really care and they are both horrible choices which in itself says something about the US (not like other places are much better, of course). Then again, lunatics as head of state is in vogue it seems, just look at South Korea. |
|
|
|
Post by nevadaballin on Nov 5, 2016 4:40:45 GMT -5
Even if most of my post is mostly skipped over, would love to know: So what exactly is the problem here if the police clearly investigated thoroughly? There is no problem with the police investigating. What is being purported is that the Clinton camp knew BEFORE the police started investigating. After his first time he was caught, the Clinton campaign realized that he could be a liability and started tracking his texts. What was reported on Fox (yeah Nevada.. Fox, not CNN or MSNBC) was that the investigators said the Clinton camp knew about the second woman. There was no direct evidence for the third but speculation allows if you are tracking the texts and know about #2, you probably are still tracking him for #3. When you say "Fox"... i say "LoL". Fox's Bret Baier is probably choking on some crow somewhere when ABC News discounted his story the other day (the one Taste linked about a few pages back) and Fox had to apologize for the inaccurate story > abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/fox-apologizes-inaccurate-hillary-clinton-report-43312329 |
|
|
|
Post by Brighttail on Nov 5, 2016 9:37:22 GMT -5
Yes Brett had to retract what he said but only the conclusion. The information that Russia doesn't leave you a greeting card after they hack your system is still accurate. What he said was he should have included the word "likely hacked" instead of "hacked." Unlike other media he apologized, redacted and reconfirmed what he had meant within 24 hours.
|
|
