Hillary lied under oath at benghazi trial email proof

I bet the odds are a lot better that Assange will release more emails before Hillary ever decides to have an open press conference.

originally posted by: lloydman

Think about it.

You have 2 choices.

1. Vote for a lying politician. Well they are all a bunch of liars. So what's the difference.

2. Vote for a disgusting subhuman with a bad comb over.

And for the record I hate both.

So it has come to this. Vote for the evil you know or vote for the evil you don't know.

There is a third choice on all 50 state ballots = Gary Johnson. Check out isidewith.com... for a comparison of the candidates

Why did Gary Johnson come out in favor of the TPP?
That wrecked him for me.

a reply to: Gin

Can you believe sky broadband has blocked the site at this link. I've used a proxy to get to it.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Can we all just accept that NOTHING this "Woman" does or has done or plans to do will ever see her arrested, or pulled up in court. Seriously we can post up links, news sites we could make videos and post them all over the net, we can stand outside her house holding signs hell you could threaten to blow up the moon unless she is investigated and NOTHING will happen. It is a sad state of the American political system and the corruption that surrounds it and this woman.

The sad fact of it, is this: THE WOMAN IS BULLETPROOF AND SHE KNOWS IT. The arrogance on her face says it all but if the rumours are true, she is very sick, she has a brain injury that means she gets easily confused and doesn't always get things done right (evidence is clear) so maybe she'll become to sick to do the job.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: digital01anarchy

If the emails contain this info, why doesn't he just release the emails? Instead this is a link to a quote from him SAYING that these emails exist. That's not proof of anything.

It wouldn't matter anyway.
The last email dump from him contained proof that the MSM is working and lying for the Clinton campaign.... but Hillary supporters don't care. They will still vote for her, and they will tell everyone that they are still going to vote for her.

So it looks like neither side cares since your side is jumping on the flimsiest of evidence to call "proof" of Hillary corruption. This thread is an example of it.

How is this thread an example? I never stated anything as fact only rumors. Flimsiest? Lol she got caught using a personal server and yes some of the emails got retroactived classified but not all had been classified later including ones at the highest security classification level. She got off using ignorance as her legal defense which doesnt work as a legal defense or has ever worked as a legal defense until she did it. Neither side cares because they barely understand how to operate a computer however most people dont have information security professionals working for them and informing them what is legal and what isnt. What is sad is it wasnt her staff that created the problem hillary ignored everything and made the people who worked for her break the law. There is proof of her telling her staff to scrub the header and send classified information over an unsecure network.
If your willing to ignore the fact that she could of been selling the information for donations to her presidential campaign and she refuses to release her foriegn campaign donation list then you are part of the problem in america right now.

Who is worse? Trump has lied and cheated...certainly skills needed for a US president.
Cheers

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: lloydman

Think about it.

You have 2 choices.

1. Vote for a lying politician. Well they are all a bunch of liars. So what's the difference.

2. Vote for a disgusting subhuman with a bad comb over.

And for the record I hate both.

So it has come to this. Vote for the evil you know or vote for the evil you don't know.

There is a third choice on all 50 state ballots = Gary Johnson. Check out isidewith.com... for a comparison of the candidates

Why did Gary Johnson come out in favor of the TPP?
That wrecked him for me.

Sadly that is so.

“It is my understanding that the TPP does advance free trade,” says Johnson, “Is it a perfect document? Probably not. But based on my understanding of the document, I would be supporting it [though] in a perfect world there wouldn’t be a document like that, there would just be free trade.”

This comes just two weeks after Johnson told Politico that TPP is “laden with crony capitalism.” And that the “Free market really is the answer.”

Apparently according to the article Hillary doesn't support the TPP. I believe she does and pandered to Bernie voters saying she does not. Wouldn't put it past her to flip flop if she is saying she does not support it.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and presumptive Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein all oppose TPP.

Source

He supports it now, albeit I'm hoping just due to a lack of fine details about it and not ill intent(didn't someone say he was a shill on here lately?) in that case may change a pro view if informed, yet Hillary-Dog and Pony show- doesn't? Strange times.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Dude your thread title has the word "proof" in it. Yet there is no proof! That's what I'm talking about.

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: Gin

Can you believe sky broadband has blocked the site at this link. I've used a proxy to get to it.

Well that is kinda worrisome, wonder how many is affected. Reminds me of the Great Firewall of China when they don't want their citizen to read critical news.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

A few items to unpack here...

Rand Paul was asking about a secret and covert operation regarding the CIA Annex during an open hearing..

That is why Hillary has that WTF expression on her face...

And she responds with "you will have to ask the agency responsible for running the annex"..

He then says "you don't know" and she says "I don't know" and moves on quickly...

What you are missing here is that YES the CIA was using the annex AND Ambassador Stephens to reclaim weapons in Libya that the CIA had given the rebels fighting Ghaddafi, but which the CIA was worried would then fall into terrorist hands.

Sure...maybe the CIA was rerouting those recovered rocket launchers etc. to the Syrian rebels via Turkey...

But either way...if she had answered the question truthfully...THAT would have been illegal...disclosing secret operations to the public...She ducked the question appropriately concerning a question about a covert CIA operation in an open hearing.

I have no doubt that Rand Paul was reprimanded either by the intelligence committee chairman or the Director of the CIA or both simply for asking the question in an open hearing to begin with.

US Gov officials are actually required not to answer those questions or required to lie...that is how Secret Operations work. If she had answered the question she would have been liable for prosecution.

originally posted by: grey580

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: digital01anarchy

If the emails contain this info, why doesn't he just release the emails? Instead this is a link to a quote from him SAYING that these emails exist. That's not proof of anything.

It wouldn't matter anyway.
The last email dump from him contained proof that the MSM is working and lying for the Clinton campaign.... but Hillary supporters don't care. They will still vote for her, and they will tell everyone that they are still going to vote for her.

Think about it.

You have 2 choices.

1. Vote for a lying politician. Well they are all a bunch of liars. So what's the difference.

2. Vote for a disgusting subhuman with a bad comb over.
-- snip --

Ok....

I got the first part, but what's the choice besides Hillary??

To stay on topic:

Documentation is documentation, but, as others have said, it wouldn't sway a Hillary supporter if you carved it into the hood of their car with a six penny nail.

Some here choose to dismiss everything Phil Haney has written out of hand because they don't like the message or dislike the publisher he had to go to to get his word out. That doesn't make it untrue. One of the very last points he makes in "See Something, Say Nothing" is that the truth of what was going on in Benghazi was known before the September 11th attack happened. Apparently, nobody cares...

originally posted by: digital01anarchy
Julian Assange: Hacked Emails Include Info On Hillary’s Arming of Jihadists, Including ISIS, in Syria

Ok so apparently the wikileak info about an hillary that will put her in jail is emails that prove she lied underoath to congress in the benghazi trail. If this information is true do you think it will really have any effect? Somehow i think this isnt going to do anything considering the legality of how the information was obtained

This has long been known to anyone who pays attention to the way we go about our "regime change", it would be foolish to not realize that this was one of the main reasons NATO over threw Gaddafi.

We can only hope that these emails get out and spread like wildfire throughout the international community. I fear that my fellow Americans are to brainwashed to care. Cognitive dissonance will probably set in and people will do all they can to cling to the "americna exceptionalism" mantra, like a baby clings to their pacifier!

To open this can of worms goes beyond psychopathic Hillary.

It implicate our entire foreign policy, it exposes our intelligence network and military industrial complex as the true purveyors of the worlds terrorism.

What is ironic about it is that this was admitted by sadistically insane Hillary decades ago!

Can this be moved to skunk? Clearly no "proof" as the OP claimed. Another bait thread.

a reply to: digital01anarchy

Hey, it's not like this is the first time this has happened...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You want proof of Hillary wrongdoing? Clinton peddled her influence for $1.3M for Uranium One. She took a bribe to use her position of SECSTATE to approve a transaction that HAD to be approved through the government because uranium is a sensitive material. The problem is that mine is directly tied to our nuclear stockpile. ONE FIFTH OF IT, actually. And who bought it? RUSSIANS. So she sold us out to the enemy which is treason. $hillary is a traitor
But I'm sure that you will find a way to justify why she shouldn't be shot. Go ahead so I can prove you wrong.

originally posted by: ColdChillin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You want proof of Hillary wrongdoing? Clinton peddled her influence for $1.3M for Uranium One. She took a bribe to use her position of SECSTATE to approve a transaction that HAD to be approved through the government because uranium is a sensitive material. The problem is that mine is directly tied to our nuclear stockpile. ONE FIFTH OF IT, actually. And who bought it? RUSSIANS. So she sold us out to the enemy which is treason. $hillary is a traitor
But I'm sure that you will find a way to justify why she shouldn't be shot. Go ahead so I can prove you wrong.

I'm guessing you don't know the meaning of the word proof.

I'm sure you'll find a way to ignore the fact you haven't provided proof and still peddle your opinion as fact.

a reply to: ColdChillin

They do not acknowledge that this is even a real thing.

a reply to: SudoNim

LMAO. She is toast, dude. How much does the campaign pay you to get on sites like ATS and scream bs, anyway? I've always wondered.