Reply With Quote
No it's not. Directly on Hillary means directly on Hillary. It means it has to come from her personally hacked emails or otherwise.
Remove John Podesta and you got nothing. That's what directly means. If Hillary is not hacked, then you get nothing.
what leaked info is ever verified and gooten through the victim
Dumbass
No it's not. Directly on Hillary means directly on Hillary. It means it has to come from her personally hacked emails or otherwise.
Remove John Podesta and you got nothing. That's what directly means. If Hillary is not hacked, then you get nothing.
Seriously?
Dumbass
When the DNC got hacked..that was a direct hacking of the whole DNC infrastructure.
There is also Colin Powell. He also got hacked directly and his info leaked.
Those are her personally hacked emails. They just came from a different computer, but they're still her emails. You're flailing now, and creating new caveats after the fact.
Coming from a different computer=directly?
And this is not even taking into account the vadility of the hacking. Which I'm not even implying/
So then how does "from her personally hacked emails" clear that "DNC hack" disqualifier?Seriously?
When the DNC got hacked..that was a direct hacking of the whole DNC infrastructure.
There is also Colin Powell. He also got hacked directly and his info leaked.
Yes, because it's directly from her, not someone paraphrasing her. If she emails you, do you read it from her computer? No, you read it from yours. You are reading this from yours. Why would she email herself?
If I'm looking to hack you...why would I hack your friend? Information gotten from third party is not directly in my book.
Exactly.
Dumbass
Bye Reck.
So the DNC wasn't a victim? That was a direct hack...
Really? So if you post threats to the POTUS on CNN's forum and they forward that to the secret service, it doesn't count even if your IP is verified, because you didn't email yourself?
You didn't bet that Hillary wouldn't be hacked. You bet that Assange wouldn't have anything else directly on Hillary. He did. You lost. You're still falsely equivocating "directly on" with "directly from". It's dishonest and you know it.
There's nothing else to say about it, I'm not going to hand hold you back to your dignity. Perhaps you can blow goats for a nickel a herd and win some of it back if you record it and post it here.
That's a re ed analogy.
You keep saying emailing herself. Who's talking about self emailing?
Assange has yet to provide direct information that isn't coming from Podesta. Period.
If it's true, I bet the liberal shills and Hillary supporters will say "trigger...she's saying trigger....as in what will happen if Russia keeps interfering. It's been edited" or some bs like that.
reck is a . was re ed enough to make that bet and now is being dishonorable about it after the fact
How did wikileaks get this information? Was it lifted from John Podesta or Hillary?
You don't get to interpret this to suit your purpose. Directly means directly.
link me to the post with the terms of your bet
Directly from means directly from. Directly on doesn't specify who it's from, it doesn't matter.
I've got information on your employer...
not the same as
I've got information from your employer...
You said "on".
Probably. Look how the right tried to brush off Santorum calling Obama an anti war government nig-oops in that speech.
just saw the Santorum clip for the first time. Hilarious. i never was a fan of Santorum and can't imagine him ever having a real shot at POTUS.
When bd talks christian sharia, santirum is who i think of.
He posted another video today, 3 more to go. I still have no reason to doubt him, he's delivered so far.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
