Podesta E-Mail Dump

[Pens1566]

I haven't noticed speedy but I've noticed all you lefties on this board jerk each other off so much it would seem your talking about you and eskimo pie or does that make your cover story wives the cucks?

Um, ok?

What the fuck guys? Your acting like pens made any goddamn sense.

Everyone else understood it. Given that, and your ... post ... above, it seems you're the one with trouble conveying a point coherently.

 

[Pens1566]

CNN doesn't make mistakes, remember? They don't fix debates by giving Democrats the answers in advance, remember? Wait, are you saying they intentionally cooked the numbers so Trump would lead? and Reverse cuck?

So, no. You haven't bothered to look into why that specific poll in NV is garbage. Of course not. It would go against your already self-confirmed theories. And, strawman away.

Bonus points for being so monumentally stupid to think that there are "answers" to debate questions. Jesus F'in Christ, who ties your shoes in the morning?

 

[fskimospy]

Alright, so at least we admit that they handled the subpoena in an adversarial manner makes it "not unethical" when it came from a congressional subpoena (you're right, not FBI investigation) because it was "clearly partisan". Glad we got that out of the way. So basically all your defense of her actions comes purely from your partisanship? So THAT'S when its okay to destroy, or obscure, evidence and impede an investigation. lol

I have no idea why you would think that my defense of her actions stems from partisanship as I didn't say that or imply that, and your attempt to paint my description that way is deeply disingenuous. Knock it off. Regardless of the party affiliation of the investigator, if an investigation is not being carried out in good faith, and I would hope no one would attempt to argue that the investigation WAS being carried out in good faith, it's definitely not unethical to give them what amounts to the middle finger. In fact, it's an affirmative good. I mean otherwise it's basically saying that instead of replying to Joe McCarthy with 'have you no decency' they should have said 'whatever I can do to help!'

Also, I'm not privy to the details as to how everything was delivered so of course I wouldn't be admitting they handled it in an adversarial manner. I have no idea on the specifics, I was simply saying that congressional Republicans richly deserved an adversarial response if one was given and I imagine everyone would agree. Finally, it appears that you've decided to ignore the fact that your original pedantic complaint about what I said is unfounded as people using the phrase 'document dump' in a non-adversarial way can be found repeatedly with a simple google search. So all this pointless ranting about ethics and all that comes from your incorrect demand that we adopt your preferred definition even when the definition I was using is in common usage.

This is dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

So, no. You haven't bothered to look into why that specific poll in NV is garbage. Of course not. It would go against your already self-confirmed theories. And, strawman away.

Bonus points for being so monumentally stupid to think that there are "answers" to debate questions. Jesus F'in Christ, who ties your shoes in the morning?

Why is the poll garbage in particular? I'm not aware of any methodological flaws.

It seems that the poll is likely to be wrong as early voting appears favor Clinton in Nevada by about 5 points and since somewhere around 70% of votes are cast early there that will be extremely difficult for Trump to overcome, but in my opinion being wrong is different than being garbage as even methodologically sound polls will be wrong outside the margin of error at least 5% of the time. (and in reality probably more as the MOE is often understated)

 

[Jaskalas]

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

29. Hillary sends U.S. intelligence and war plans to Podesta’s hacked email

• https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/24353
  
  
• https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/7243
  
  
• “Note: Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.”

• Definitive proof that Hillary Clinton knowingly violated Title 18 U.S. Code § 798 'Unauthorized Disclosure of Classified Information.', sharing war plans directly from US and western Intelligence sources, LINKED TO BENGHAZI.
  
  
• “It’s unquestionably an OPSEC violation,” Dr. John Schindler, a former NSA analyst and national security expert, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
  
  
• Anyone could easily hack this intelligence information (especially as Podesta’s password was “password”). That is why government personnel, especially the top brass, need to go through proper, secure channels, a.k.a. Government 101.

In her defense, it appears to be a broad scope plan... not naming sources or explaining details, times, places, people.
One wonders if something there was specifically classified or not.

 

[Kazukian]

My favorite is the "Spirit Dinner" stuff, Podesta is more than a little trippy.

https://mobile.twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

 

[Pens1566]

Why is the poll garbage in particular? I'm not aware of any methodological flaws.

It seems that the poll is likely to be wrong as early voting appears favor Clinton in Nevada by about 5 points and since somewhere around 70% of votes are cast early there that will be extremely difficult for Trump to overcome, but in my opinion being wrong is different than being garbage as even methodologically sound polls will be wrong outside the margin of error at least 5% of the time. (and in reality probably more as the MOE is often understated)

The cliff notes is that it didn't poll (or severely under-polled) latinos, and had Trump in the lead in heavily democratic Clark County (Vegas). Those 2 scream out that the findings are invalid. Google Joe Ralston analysis for a more detailed description. Might need the video as I saw it from an interview.

 

[fskimospy]

The cliff notes is that it didn't poll (or severely under-polled) latinos, and had Trump in the lead in heavily democratic Clark County (Vegas). Those 2 scream out that the findings are invalid. Google Joe Ralston analysis for a more detailed description. Might need the video as I saw it from an interview.

Yes, Trump leading in Clark County does seem to indicate an issue with their sample or their voter screen.

 

[Jhhnn]

Alright, so at least we admit that they handled the subpoena in an adversarial manner makes it "not unethical" when it came from a congressional subpoena (you're right, not FBI investigation) because it was "clearly partisan". Glad we got that out of the way. So basically all your defense of her actions comes purely from your partisanship? So THAT'S when its okay to destroy, or obscure, evidence and impede an investigation. lol

If I send you a subpoena for something you don't have, is somebody who does have it obligated by the subpoena? If you tell that third party that the material is under subpoena & they destroy it anyway following previous instructions, who's to blame? You, or the third party?

 

[momeNt]

If I send you a subpoena for something you don't have, is somebody who does have it obligated by the subpoena? If you tell that third party that the material is under subpoena & they destroy it anyway following previous instructions, who's to blame? You, or the third party?

What specifically are you trying to say? Is that purely hypothetical are would you mind actually stating the parallels. Pretend I'm dumb, the truth can hurt but I'm a big boy.

 

[ivwshane]

What specifically are you trying to say? Is that purely hypothetical are would you mind actually stating the parallels. Pretend I'm dumb, the truth can hurt but I'm a big boy.

Its not hypothetical, it's actually what happened. If you were smart you'd know that if it was illegal then Clinton could have been easily charged for it, but she wasn't so...

 

[Jhhnn]

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

29. Hillary sends U.S. intelligence and war plans to Podesta’s hacked email

In her defense, it appears to be a broad scope plan... not naming sources or explaining details, times, places, people.
One wonders if something there was specifically classified or not.

Did that tell you anything you didn't already know?

Probably not, certainly not if you've been paying attention at all.

Swing and a miss!

 

[Jhhnn]

Its not hypothetical, it's actually what happened. If you were smart you'd know that if it was illegal then Clinton could have been easily charged for it, but she wasn't so...

They just want it to be different so desperately that they really believe it is different. It's the "whoever yells loudest wins" form of argument. where faith conquers all.

 

[momeNt]

Its not hypothetical, it's actually what happened. If you were smart you'd know that if it was illegal then Clinton could have been easily charged for it, but she wasn't so...

Yea, so I mean, what parallels are you trying to make?