Paul's fantasy deathpool value just skyrocketed.
this tin foil hat stuff is hilarious... so why couldn't the scrubbing could've been for another client?
Another client is just far less plausible considering the timing of it all. Why would he ask how to scrub emails illegally the day after his employer Clinton found out the results of the Benghazi committee? Why would Combetta delete all of his posts and accounts linked to his email address when this broke if it were another client?
TSA's full time job is an interesting one.
There's zero evidence it's "far less plausible". There's actually way more plausible, reasonable explanations (ie: confidentiality, employement agreements) to the accounts cleanup, considering his persona was linked to the alias.
This is when we get to "what you believe, what he believes", and that's exactly what I'm saying about the vagueness of the evidence.
TSA has El defending the old hag.
I've seen it all.
He's not defending. He'll tell you that himself.TSA has El defending the old hag.
I've seen it all.
Do you really need Reddit to dig through this to figure it out?
What's really remarkable, IMO, is that Congress seemingly will get back into this thing.
The fact that the vast majority of people don't really give a about "email-gate" anymore is largely due to Congress running this thing to the ground. It's similar to Benghazi in a lot of ways.
Democrats are really not supposed to brag about this.
Why would he ask how to scrub emails illegally the day after his employer Clinton found out the results of the Benghazi committee? You really think it is more plausible that was just coincidence and he was asking how to scrub for another client?
How do you know how many clients he was working for at the time? Isn't this dude an employee of a contractor?
The whole point is that if you're going to go into potentially a criminal indictment, you need much better evidence than a reddit post that doesn't name Shillary, nor clearly indicates it was a request specifically for her.
Wrong. The majority of people do give a about Hillary Clinton's emails. Out of all concerns with Clinton it is the top one.
Do you really need Reddit to dig through this to figure it out?
What's really remarkable, IMO, is that Congress seemingly will get back into this thing.
The fact that the vast majority of people don't really give a about "email-gate" anymore is largely due to Congress running this thing to the ground. It's similar to Benghazi in a lot of ways.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...ersial-n651876
Without her being named of course it won't lead to an indictment. Put an indictment aside, given the timing of the Benghazi committee results requesting her emails the day before is it more plausible he is talking about his client Hillary Clinton or another client?
With as stupid and sloppy Combetta was and how poorly Clinton's server was set up it would not surprise me in the least if Assange's October surprise is hacked email correspondence between Combetta and Clinton incriminating her.
It's only a "major" concern for 29% of people. That's basically the republican base.
Here's another look from Pew at what people mostly care about candidates:
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/...ton-and-trump/
Basically, what we already knew: one is not the other.
A single poll is not indicative of how the rest of country feels about it.
You can do 5 different polls and you get 5 different results.
The ordinary American person is ready to move on from this. The only people who seem to really be invested in this are far leaning republicans.
"Plausible" won't get you anywhere. You either have the evidence or you don't. In this case, so far, you don't.
Find me a poll on Clinton concerns that doesn't have the top concern "liar". What's the first word people polled think of when they hear Hillary Clinton....liar/dishonest.
I asked for your opinion putting the possibility of an indictment aside. Again, putting an indictment aside, given the timing of the Benghazi committee results requesting her emails the day before is it more plausible he is talking about his client Hillary Clinton or another client?
Now you're doing mental gymnastics.
Who gives a that people's top concern of Hillary is that she's a liar. Duh, part of being a politician means you are a conniving . Rare exceptions are Bernie and Warren bless their hearts.
I dont know how you go from "majority of people care about her emails" to liar being a top concern.
So she's a liar. She was a big liar even before the email server. I dont see how that plays into how people feel about the email story which is that most want to move on.
Reddit is cooperating http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecur...-clinton-probe
Reck I'm really having a hard time biting my tongue and not calling you stupid. People think she's a liar because of the emails. You're doing mental gymnastics trying to separate the two.
Let me help you then. No stupid, that's not the reason why people think she's a liar.
She had that perception long before now. People do not trust the Clintons because they are too secretive. They dont like the media or the people in on their business. When they do, they get mad.
That's why they have such ty overview. The email thing just heightens that perception of them.
Are you new?
Do you have any polls showing the majority of Americans aren't concerned with her use and set up of a private server?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
