Collusion to withhold emails by HRC Staff 3-4-15...the same day as subpoena..Wikileak 7

Another interesting thing from Wikileaks 7:
Bizpacreview
Hillary's plans for going after Obama as 'growing up Muslim'.

* 1 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) was the only candidate at a recent event not to cover his heart during the national anthem and he has stopped wearing an American flag pin.
* 2 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) benefited from a land deal from a contributor who has been indicted for corruption.
* 3 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) would personally negotiate with the leaders of terrorist nations like Iran and North Korea without preconditions.
* 4 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) voted against allowing people to use handguns to defend themselves against intruders. * 5 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) plans to raise taxes by 180 (one hundred and eighty) billion dollars a year to pay for his government-run health care plan
* 6 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) voted repeatedly against emergency funding bills for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

* 7 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh)’s father was a Muslim and Obama grew up among Muslims in the world’s most populous Islamic country.

* 8 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) is ranked as one of the ten most liberal members of the Senate because of his support of issues like gay adoption.
* 9 (Other)
* 10 (All)
* 11 (None)
* 12 (Don’t know/refused)
* 13 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive the procedure.
* 14 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) supports giving driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants
* 15 Obama (owe-BAHM-uh) described his former use of coc aine as using “a little blow.” OK, granted, some of these are pretty good, but the point is, as if everyone didn’t already know, Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. Sign up for our morning news blast HERE About Latest Posts Scott Morefield Scott Morefield Scott Morefield is a news and opinion columnist for BizPac Review and the editor of Raising Godly Children. In addition to his work on BPR, Scott's commentary can also be found on TheBlaze, WND, Breitbart, Staffing Talk, and many other sites, including A Morefield Life, where he and his wife, Kim, share their marriage and parenting journey. Read more: www.bizpacreview.com...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

It's not off topic. Someone spoke about the media being scripted. I was showing why that may be so...

Deflection? I wasn't. I was clarifying my thought. I agree it was tangential to the discussion, but relevant as someone was implying scripting of the media on this issue. Nice attack.


If so many people knew, why the supposed shock and outrage from the Benghazi committee? Were they aware of the server prior to their unprecedented "investigation" (witch hunt). Here's a conspiracy for you: What if the entire BENGHAZI investigation was a two-fold effort to:

1) attack a likely Presidential candidate for the Democrats by putting her on quasi-trial and,

2) have an excuse to comb through her emails hoping for opposition information. It was a great ruse and a down and dirty political tactic.

No Secretary of State has ever been put through that over bad events at Embassies.

But seriously, at this point, I'm not sure who knew and who didn't, are you?

AB

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Greggers

before we get muddy in definitions, i think my point is ,clear

About as clear as mud.

Logic is a formal method of reasoning to analyze arguments.

Logic isn't a magical way to discover unknown information.

does assuming that this discussion ended with this email seems logical to you?

The only one making assumptions here is you.

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Greggers

before we get muddy in definitions, i think my point is ,clear

About as clear as mud.

Logic is a formal method of reasoning to analyze arguments.

Logic isn't a magical way to discover unknown information.

does assuming that this discussion ended with this email seems logical to you?

The only one making assumptions here is you.

is that not also an assumptionm

Wow - Wikileaks is the gift that keeps on giving.

a reply to: AboveBoard

That is a lot of Bla bla bla but should not the NSA who is so so concerned with National security and who has access to all communications also have been the ones to warn the American citizens of just how corrupt the DNC and the RNP worked behind the scenes to subvert the American's choices for the leaders they wanted to choose ? Is not independent choice of the leaders what democracy is supposed to be about ?

How can people choose a leader if they have no choice but to choose who tptb want them to . Trump doesn't scare me and no amount of talking from Xtalking heads can convince me of that . Those same talking heads should have been talking many years ago like Snowden decided to do . Expose the corruption that is the system .If americas choice is to choose the same old same old then they will have the same old corrupt system they have had for years .

Time to shake the system up and Mr. Trump is doing some shaking . The curtain is being drawn back and whats behind the curtain is real ugly . Better to have the picture clear in every ones mind in order to move forward .imo

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: dashen

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Greggers

before we get muddy in definitions, i think my point is ,clear

About as clear as mud.

Logic is a formal method of reasoning to analyze arguments.

Logic isn't a magical way to discover unknown information.

does assuming that this discussion ended with this email seems logical to you?

The only one making assumptions here is you.

is that not also an assumptionm

Ummm....no.

a reply to: AboveBoard

Brilliant post there, AB. Thank you.

Wow, James Comey really looks bad now.

originally posted by: AboveBoard


No Secretary of State has ever been put through that over bad events at Embassies.

Because no Secretary of State was ever found to have ignored
over 600 requests for additional security.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: AboveBoard


No Secretary of State has ever been put through that over bad events at Embassies.

Because no Secretary of State was ever found to have ignored
over 600 requests for additional security.

She didn't ignore them. Why do you think there were over 600 requests?

600??!?!?!??!

That's a lot. I mean, a lot.

I think it's possible the guns were run under these very requests for security. But she can't have us knowing that. So they claim they were ignored, or let the opposition media say so. Poof! No guns were run to unseat Gaddafi.

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Absolutely none of this will matter to Hillary supporters.

They have had their fingers in their ears while wearing blind folds for over a year now.

Such a shame.

But it may be an interesting read to the FBI

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Does it bother you that Trump is considered a "Clear and Present Danger" by Michael Hayden (yeah, he's NSA and not my favorite guy, but he's also extremely clear on what a threat to America is, as he defended against terrorist threats for years and years...)

Real Clear Politics - Michael Hayden: Trump is a Clear and Present Danger - I Fear for Our Future

MICHAEL HAYDEN: Look, we gotta call balls and strikes the way we see them, alright? We all felt strongly enough about what we believe to be a clear and present danger, that we felt compelled to say what we said...

JAKE TAPPER: You just called Donald Trump a clear and present danger.

MICHAEL HAYDEN: Well, if he governs in any way close to the language that he has used in the campaign, I fear for our future.

Or that Michael Morell, an ex-CIA Chief calls Trump "a threat to national security?"

LINK



Here is an interesting bit of information for folks to consider...it relates to National Security vs. Freedom of Speech / Press LINK

National security may be invoked to justify measures limiting certain rights only when they are taken to protect the existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence against force or threat of force.

National security cannot be invoked as a reason for imposing limitations to prevent merely local or relatively isolated threats to law and order.

National security cannot be used as a pretext for imposing vague or arbitrary limitations and may only be invoked when there exists adequate safeguards and effective remedies against abuse.

According to this definition, restrictions on the basis of national security are only justifiable if they address a threat to the “existence of the nation or its territorial integrity or political independence,” as distinct from localised violence and ordinary criminal activities.

So please follow these ideas and see how this could impact "freedom of the press" as well as the editorial boards of major newspapers themselves by an historical and unprecedented margin ALL denouncing Trump and either endorsing Hillary or simply endorsing no-one while denouncing Trump.

1) High level ex-NSA and CIA are identifying Trump as a "clear and present danger" and "a threat to National Security" - see links above - that should tell you something important about how Trump is regarded and how he will be handled.

2) Trump has been briefed regarding Russia hacking the US/DNC. He has since then, irresponsibly, claimed "we don't know who did it" and that "they" (DNC/Hillary) are simply out to smear him with that claim. At this point, there is 90%+ certainty (they kill terrorist targets with only 75% certainty) that known Russian agents are behind the DNC hacking. (The Plot to Hack America - great book!)

3) Trump is claiming the system is "rigged" against him because he is losing, he is whipping up his supporters to follow HIM and not Hillary, should she be elected, he has threatened to use "legal" methods against his political opposition, he has advocated opening up "libel" laws to GO AFTER JOURNALISTS for saying mean things about him (i.e. to limit free press), he is claiming to be the ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE AMERICA (while throwing a bone to the 'real Americans' that follow him saying they can make a difference by electing him) and setting himself up as the leader of a "movement" and claiming our electoral process cannot be trusted, etc. etc. etc.

4) There is a growing consensus that Trump may be a "useful idiot" for the Russians just like the Ukrainian dictator that Manafort helped get into power - he has made several pro-Putin, pro-Russian oligarchy "policy" statements that are concerning to US interests. These are in-depth articles about it - and there are many many more out there!

Link - How Vladimir Putin is Using Donald Trump... (Newsweek)

Link - Trump is Already Helping Putin Consolidate Control of Ukraine (Politico)

The Controversy Over Donald Trump's Ties to Russia Explained (Vox)


So, given that Trump is being seen by US Intelligence as a "useful idiot" for Russia and is considered dangerous to our democracy, and given that the press, who have investigated this and have found many reasons to agree with this assessment, and given that he is now shoring up his base and speaking of the "Movement" that he has created while calling the election "rigged" and everything that goes against him as "rigged", how he is threatening the Press with lawsuits (NY Times, opening "libel" laws so he can sue them), etc., it totally makes sense that the Press has turned against him.

If "behind the scenes scripting" is going on, then perhaps it is because of all of the above reasons...

I think Trump wants to break America if he can't have it for himself, to fracture it and create his own Party, to sow dissent and delegitimize Clinton if she wins, as it looks more and more likely she will. I think there are those who see this at the highest levels of our National Security apparatus and who are trying to both keep him from winning, and to keep him from destroying our democracy.

That is my take on it...

- AB

Can you please explain how he is an ACTUAL threat to national security? I'm not a Trump supporter, but that's a bit over the top.

Also, sorry to break it to you, but threatening to sue journalists for libel, slander, or defamation of character is perfectly legal in this country, and can actually be justified if those journalists (or others) present false information or accusations. That's not trying to "limit the freedom of the press." The press doesn't have the freedom to publish false accusations.