THE WIKILEAKS

Wilber · November 5, 2016

Giuliani has said people within the FBI released information directly to the Trump campaign. Would you be OK with the RCMP or CISIS releasing information to a single Canadian political party just before an election, particularly a party you do not support? What the FBI knows or doesn't know is not the issue here.

Has the FBI ever come out and said publicly that the DOJ is interfering in their investigations? Please show me because I've seen a lot of people claiming they are and on this forum to, but I have yet to find anything from the FBI.

My son is a cop and that is a reason I find this behaviour so offensive. It reflects on police everywhere.

OftenWrong · November 5, 2016

Normally I would not be ok with it.But just because Giuliani says something, doesn't make it true. That's the problem we all face these days, there's so much information that we can't discern truth from lies. People have no option but to choose what they want to believe.

If Hillary Clinton had been transparent from the get-go she would be in a much better position to defend herself, but apparently she didn't (or couldn't) do that, opening herself up to such personal attacks. She's a damned fool for thinking she can cover this up, and for thinking that american people are stupid and naive enough to believe her bullshit. The emails were deleted with bleach-bit, no less. From what I understand (not being an american), she already came into this with very little to stand on from a moral or trustworthiness point of view. Now that the house of cards is coming down, she's lashing out at everyone and anyone including the FBI. Beware a drowning woman.

Hal 9000 · November 5, 2016

Remember when "freedom of the press" meant freedom from critical analysis of the gov't, now it means freedom to stump for them.

Remember when the media liked the release gov't leaks, now they make excuses, hide them and persecute the whistleblower.

Wilber · November 5, 2016

3 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Normally I would not be ok with it.But just because Giuliani says something, doesn't make it true. That's the problem we all face these days, there's so much information that we can't discern truth from lies. People have no option but to choose what they want to believe.

There is no "normally", either you are OK with it or you are not.

That Giuliani lies goes without saying, but what is he lying about?

What is Hillary covering up? We don't know that either but it is easy to judge people on what we don't know. We don't have to back anything up.

bush_cheney2004 · November 5, 2016

3 minutes ago, Wilber said:

What is Hillary covering up? We don't know that either but it is easy to judge people on what we don't know. We don't have to back anything up.

So you admit that Clinton has covered "something" up and we know she destroyed forensic evidence, and denied mishandling classified information during an FBI interview.

What more does a voter need to know to make a decision ? Does there have to be an actual indictment ?

Wilber · November 5, 2016

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

So you admit that Clinton has covered "something" up and we know she destroyed forensic evidence, and denied mishandling classified information during an FBI interview.

What more does a voter need to know to make a decision ? Does there have to be an actual indictment ?

That's the point, we don't know what if anything she is covering up, that leaves it open for people to say whatever they want. A nothing cannot be proved.

Yes there does have to be an indictment if you are accusing someone of a crime?

Because otherwise, you have This kind of shit.

bush_cheney2004 · November 5, 2016

1 minute ago, Wilber said:

That's the point, we don't know what if anything she is covering up, that leaves it open for people to say whatever they want. A nothing cannot be proved.

Yes there does have to be an indictment if you are accusing someone of a crime?

False...the standard for winning a voter's choice on the ballot is far lower. This game is not about legal protocol.

All of this has been brought on by Clinton's own decisions and actions.

sharkman · November 5, 2016

12 hours ago, Wilber said:

Giuliani has said people within the FBI released information directly to the Trump campaign. Would you be OK with the RCMP or CISIS releasing information to a single Canadian political party just before an election, particularly a party you do not support? What the FBI knows or doesn't know is not the issue here.

Has the FBI ever come out and said publicly that the DOJ is interfering in their investigations? Please show me because I've seen a lot of people claiming they are and on this forum to, but I have yet to find anything from the FBI.

My son is a cop and that is a reason I find this behaviour so offensive. It reflects on police everywhere.

Giuiiani just plain did not say that. Some schmuck rabid leftwingers are spreading that lie simply to get people upset about the FBI, because they're hurting Hillary's campaign. It's all an attempt to get attention off Hillary and on the Dems. This is so funny, the FBI was their hero when Comey let her off the hook in July. They were singing his praises, what a good guy he was for being a Rep.

Meanwhile the Department of Justice has been interfering with the FBI's investigations all along. Wikileaks PROVES that the DOJ has been giving inside info to the Clinton campaign. Peter Kadzik of the DOJ emailed Podesta of Hillary's campaign, and the emails show this, it's not some rumour/lie started by some leftwinger in his mother's basement. I'm surprised you haven't heard this, but then the MSM has been quite selective on what it reports these days.

How would you like it if your son was working for the federal government at an embassy, oh let's say in Benghazi. Several higher ups start getting real concerned about strong indicators they are getting that an attack of some kind could occur. So they pass along this information repeatedly, and ask for more security forces to protect lives. These requests are denied, over 600 requests are made. Nothing happens, and then an attack is made and your son is seriously hurt.

How does that sound? Because that REALLY happened, Wilber. Hillary has stated that she never got one single request, and it is on record that over 600 were made. Now you and I know that she got those requests, and is lying her ass off because of some kind of cover up regarding her, the CIA and Obama. It stinks. Then she goes and sets up a private server so she can be free to accept money for favours with any foreign national. She amasses over 2 billion and you've probably never heard of this either because the MSM wants her to win.

Edited November 5, 2016 by sharkman

Wilber · November 5, 2016

Giuliani says he got his information from former agents who got it from active agents. Do you really believe people inside the FBI aren't using him? Could you really be that naive?

Seven Investigations into Benghazi by a Republican dominated Congress

That's what really happened.

Obviously nothing short of a lynching will satisfy Sharkman

kimmy · November 5, 2016

35 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Giuiiani just plain did not say that. Some schmuck rabid leftwingers are spreading that lie simply to get people upset about the FBI, because they're hurting Hillary's campaign. It's all an attempt to get attention off Hillary and on the Dems.

Certainly he did say that. Giuliani was on Fox And Friends yesterday bragging about his FBI contacts and saying he's known this was coming for weeks. And he was on Fox two days before Comey's announcement bragging that they had a big surprise coming.

He changed his story later, saying that he only hears from retired FBI agents, but that's at odds with his earlier statements, particularly one in which he claimed he does hear from active agents. Perhaps he will dismiss it as "just locker-room talk".

http://www.mediaite.com/online/giuliani-denies-having-advanced-knowledge-of-comey-letter-contradicting-earlier-statement/

-k

sharkman · November 5, 2016

2 minutes ago, Wilber said:

Giuliani says he got his information from former agents who got it from active agents. Do you really believe people inside the FBI aren't using him? Could you really be that naive?

Seven Investigations into Benghazi by a Republican dominated Congress

That's what really happened.

Obviously nothing short of a lynching will satisfy Sharkman

You said. The FBI released info directly to the Trump campaign. They did not. Now you say, they released info to former agents. Which is it?

I just gave you proof that the DOJ released info DIRECTLY to the Clinton campaign and you don't even bother to respond, and obviously don't care that Hillary's actions led to the death of an Ambassador. A lynching will satisfy me? You really can't look at 1+1 and realize it doesn't add up to 11 these days. Too bad about that.

Wilber · November 5, 2016

9 minutes ago, sharkman said:

You said. The FBI released info directly to the Trump campaign. They did not. Now you say, they released info to former agents. Which is it?

The same thing if that is their intent. Don't you think information being shared by agents, active or retired would be expected to remain confidential? If not, why not just tell your next door neighbour. People inside obviously wanted this to get out. I believe you are that naive.

Quote

I just gave you proof that the DOJ released info DIRECTLY to the Clinton campaign and you don't even bother to respond, and obviously don't care that Hillary's actions led to the death of an Ambassador. A lynching will satisfy me? You really can't look at 1+1 and realize it doesn't add up to 11 these days. Too bad about that.

Why hasn't the FBI said they are being interfered with? If DOJ and the administration are making it impossible for Comey to do his job, he should do the honourable thing by saying so and offering his resignation.

No amount of investigations will satisfy you unless they come to the conclusion you want.

kimmy · November 5, 2016

25 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Hillary's actions led to the death of an Ambassador.

How so?

-k

sharkman · November 5, 2016

14 minutes ago, kimmy said:

How so?

-k

Really?

kimmy · November 5, 2016

Just now, sharkman said:

Really?

I'm aware that you guys like to shout "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!" and everybody in your media-bubble knows that somehow it's all Hillary's fault, but for those of us on the outside of the bubble, please explain how the ambassador's death was Hillary's fault.

-k

sharkman · November 5, 2016

48 minutes ago, Wilber said:

The same thing if that is their intent. Don't you think information being shared by agents, active or retired would be expected to remain confidential? If not, why not just tell your next door neighbour. People inside obviously wanted this to get out. I believe you are that naive.

Why hasn't the FBI said they are being interfered with? If DOJ and the administration are making it impossible for Comey to do his job, he should do the honourable thing by saying so and offering his resignation.

No amount of investigations will satisfy you unless they come to the conclusion you want.

I just gave you proof that the DOJ released info DIRECTLY to the Clinton campaign. Whether the FBI was interfered with or not is not the point. Whether they complain about it is not the point. The point is, the DOJ DIRECTLY gave inside information to Clinton's campaign. Why do you not see this?

Edited November 5, 2016 by sharkman

sharkman · November 5, 2016

25 minutes ago, kimmy said:

I'm aware that you guys like to shout "Benghazi Benghazi Benghazi!" and everybody in your media-bubble knows that somehow it's all Hillary's fault, but for those of us on the outside of the bubble, please explain how the ambassador's death was Hillary's fault.

-k

Kimmy, if you are still unaware of what the issue is here, then I can't help you. Maybe you guys can read up on the internet.

kimmy · November 5, 2016

7 minutes ago, sharkman said:

Kimmy, if you are still unaware of what the issue is here, then I can't help you. Maybe you guys can read up on the internet.

I'm aware of what happened at Benghazi. What I'm curious about is what you think happened there and why Hillary is to blame for the ambassador's death.

There is this trend that we see over and over where people make these vague claims about Clinton, but when challenged for details respond with "oh, if you don't already know, it's not worth explaining it" or "oh, you'd never accept my sources so what's the point?" And I have the hunch that you guys are purposefully vague because you know that as soon as you say something specific you'll get caught. Like Hal 9000's claim that the Clinton Foundation only spends 6% of its revenue on charity. Everybody on "the right" and "Team Trump" seems to accept this as common knowledge... but it's a flat-out lie.

I have a strong suspicion that "Hillary killed the heroes of Benghazi!" is similarly another right-wing claim that just doesn't stand up to facts.

-k

sharkman · November 5, 2016

I'm saying that the reason Hillary is being blamed for the ambassador's death is out there all over the place. Find it yourself. You are trying to troll me into a another useless argument. I've had 2 already today, sorry, my quota is full for today.

?Impact · November 5, 2016

5 minutes ago, sharkman said:

I'm saying that the reason Hillary is being blamed for the ambassador's death is out there all over the place.

That is the problem, there are a lot of conspiracy web sites out there that are spreading complete crap and people just accept them. I also hear that Hilary is a witch and practices occult. I hear she is a pedophile, etc. Those are all out there in many places, but what makes them true. It doesn't help that we have Trump running against her and spreading the lie that all the MSM does is lie and you should accept the 'truth' websites., but not surprising that comes from a birther.

sharkman · November 5, 2016

Good lord. She didn't send additional security to protect the Ambassador even though signs on the ground showed a gathering risk(and were they ever right) and over 600 requests were made for additional security. I'm going to stop posting today there's so little critical thinking going on.

BubberMiley · November 6, 2016

It's annoying when you lie and people call you out on it. Another example was only today when Trump tried to characterize Obama telling a crowd that a protester had the right to free speech as Obama screaming at the protester. Soon we'll have his supporters here saying that if you can't see he was screaming at that protester, then I can't help you.

OftenWrong · November 6, 2016

10 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

It's annoying when you lie and people call you out on it. Another example was only today when Trump tried to characterize Obama telling a crowd that a protester had the right to free speech as Obama screaming at the protester. Soon we'll have his supporters here saying that if you can't see he was screaming at that protester, then I can't help you.

The good part of what Trump said was, Obama was screaming, but as usual no one was listening.

kimmy · November 6, 2016

16 hours ago, sharkman said:

Good lord. She didn't send additional security to protect the Ambassador even though signs on the ground showed a gathering risk(and were they ever right) and over 600 requests were made for additional security. I'm going to stop posting today there's so little critical thinking going on.

That's a fair response, and more reasonable than the one I was expecting.

So is it reasonable to hold Hillary Clinton personally accountable for the deaths at Benghazi? The State Department is an organization with tens of thousands of employees and hundreds of facilities all over the world. Is it reasonable to expect that she would have personal knowledge of the security situation at each of them, or the security expertise to assess whether each facility's security was adequate? How many other facilities were also asking for additional security? Is it reasonable to assume that the State Department could have provided more security anyway, given that the security budget they'd been given by Congress was well below the funding level they'd requested?

Ultimately as head of the State Department, she was in charge. But to put personal blame on her for security arrangements at Benghazi seems like expecting an unrealistic level of detail from a senior executive... somewhat akin to blaming Stephen Harper for not being personally aware of Mike Duffy's expenses.

-k

Hal 9000 · November 6, 2016

48 minutes ago, kimmy said:

That's a fair response, and more reasonable than the one I was expecting.

So is it reasonable to hold Hillary Clinton personally accountable for the deaths at Benghazi? The State Department is an organization with tens of thousands of employees and hundreds of facilities all over the world. Is it reasonable to expect that she would have personal knowledge of the security situation at each of them, or the security expertise to assess whether each facility's security was adequate? How many other facilities were also asking for additional security? Is it reasonable to assume that the State Department could have provided more security anyway, given that the security budget they'd been given by Congress was well below the funding level they'd requested?

Ultimately as head of the State Department, she was in charge. But to put personal blame on her for security arrangements at Benghazi seems like expecting an unrealistic level of detail from a senior executive... somewhat akin to blaming Stephen Harper for not being personally aware of Mike Duffy's expenses.

-k

You're post shows pure ignorance toward the situation in Benghazi.