Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The wikileaks from Podestas emails seem to be so damming that the Media, the DNC and HRC campaign has to completely deny their existence.

Podesta admits his email was hacked, but refuses to validate his own emails.

If the emails were not legit, then how did they end up in the debate, like this one?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5205

Or how do they end up with detailed information on the clinton campaign, dates, meetings times of phone calls, peoples phone numbers.

Are we really supposed to believe Russia fabricated all this and it happens to just look true, but not really?

Just to be clear: so Podesta has admitted he was hacked. So is he also saying not only was he hacked, but his hacked emails were somehow edited? Has he directly claimed the emails are wrong?

I was kind of horrified to hear that Donna Brazille woman, when Megyn Kelly confronted her about the shit in the emails, just go "oh so you're using stolen stuff!".

So okay, we've all acknowledged these things were not legally obtained. But they are out there now, so we need more than just "well you're using stolen evidence".

Since, this woman denied she did what they are saying when it came to the questions given out, but then she gets pissy when the emails are brought up as proof of her actions. I'm confused, has ANYONE come out and directly said these hacked emails have been altered? Since that is a much more legitimate road to go down than "well oh the evidence you got was stolen".

I don't care if the evidence came from Santa Clause himself, is it VALID? If it is valid, whether or not it is stolen is not the most pressing issue here. Have we become the type of country where we whine about the breach of privacy and not what the breach reveals? Which, isn't that hypocritical as hell for our government to have that stance?

Remember Trump's tax returns were illegally obtained, the left didn't care.

Also look at the forum, none of the liberals here care about the emails, they were already programmed to deny their existence.

Remember, Trump was called vile for saying the things he said, but the democrats planning to start riots at Trump rallies was called "trolling" lol.

I wake up this morning and what are the main stories? Oh, Trump and Hilary at some asinine Catholic benefit and Trump made rude or unfunny jokes. That was the top news story when I got up today.

At this point this is like a heroin addict that refuses to get clean. At some point you just have to sit back and let them OD.

Are we supposed to believe he isn't cheating on his wife here?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22197

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Are we supposed to believe he isn't cheating on his wife here?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22197

Well no that's just..I dunno, I'm sure the guy was just doing research on speed dating because..reasons?

Plus just because he is deceitful and manipulative to those closest to him doesn't mean he behaves that way with others. I mean, JFK cheated too so...yeah? I dunno, I'm running out of straws to grasp at.

No he was talking to the person he was going on a date with.

I mean holy shit if you're going to cheat on your wife as a politician just get a hooker like everyone else. Do you seriously want to DATE a female willing to get involved with a married man? Are there zero standards anymore?

russia stole the wikileaks they are made up

Proof?

the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to assert wikileaks' authenticity.

Were you born stupid? Or did you end up that way through liberalism.

Now you are going to deny these emails exist?

They came from his email address, you hack.

Also Clinton already verified the authenticity.

haha yeah totally bro. but anyway the point stands and you're wrong.

"the thing is authentic" <----burden of proof

"the thing is not proven to be authentic" <----no burden of proof

Clinton already verified the authenticity

Sucks to be you

oh snap! source?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-clinton-confirmed-authenticity-of-podesta-emails/article/2605063

do you have a valid source?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wikileaks-clinton-confirmed-authenticity-of-podesta-emails/article/2605063

you're good, you

http://i.imgur.com/LRZwzN5.gif

Nice owning you

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the burden of proof rests on anyone who wants to assert wikileaks' authenticity. hillary admitted they were real in the last debate. We have dates of their events and scripts of their speeches that link to televised events. What are you freaking berniespawn so retarded about? Please tell me youre voting for hillary. Please tell me how you think Trump wont win but you think Bernie has a better chance of winning. Tell me how donating to hillary is cool because bernie can still make college free for gangstas by having no one in the party ever listen to him except crooked hillary. In fact, just tell me anything Bernie ever said, ever.

Originally posted by Its2016
hillary admitted they were real in the last debate.
{CITATION NEEDED}

Her own ****ing mouth. Are you seriously this dense? Or is this more liberal logic?

empty posturing - check
citation - ...

nah, the burden of proof is on the one who claims authenticity. haven't you ever seen pawn stars, bro?

deflection and lack of categorical denying =/= acknowledgement of authenticity.

pleading the 5th does not equal admission of guilt either...if you're donald, i mean. if you're hillary, that's different.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
nah, the burden of proof is on the one who claims authenticity. haven't you ever seen pawn stars, bro?

deflection and lack of categorical denying =/= acknowledgement of authenticity.

pleading the 5th does not equal admission of guilt either...if you're donald, i mean. if you're hillary, that's different.

If these were truly fake: why is the Clinton campaign not shouting this from every rooftop? I'm confused.

I will grant you that doesn't prove authenticity either. I just don't understand why they wouldn't be openly denying this more if these were legitimately altered emails. Especially if they could prove they were altered, they could kill two birds with one stone.

For now the strategy of the campaign has seemed to be...dance around the issue by talking about the illegality of the way the emails were obtained.

"If you read the email, youll understand what I was talking about............Vladamir Putin"

-H at the third debate. First question.

Originally posted by Surtur
If these were truly fake: why is the Clinton campaign not shouting this from every rooftop? I'm confused.

I will grant you that doesn't prove authenticity either. I just don't understand why they wouldn't be openly denying this more if these were legitimately altered emails. Especially if they could prove they were altered, they could kill two birds with one stone.

For now the strategy of the campaign has seemed to be...dance around the issue by talking about the illegality of the way the emails were obtained.

Surtur, she admitted they were real and authenticated them when she talked about the content of them at the the two debates and had to explain them.

She said "if you read the whole thing, you would see I was talking about open borders about energy.."

Thats all there is too it, all bash is doing is trying to explain why he wont discuss them, from a losing point of view, Astner also destroyed his low liberal iq.

@astner (sorry i don't do the split-quote thing, so bear with me)

fallacious reasoning. first off, any valid theory require some form of supporting evidence-or in the case of mathematics, valid reasoning. you can't just say "the universe came from a unicorn's butthole", put the burden of proof on the doubter to prove it wrong, and then kick back and celebrate your victory. secondly, since goldbach's conjecture cannot be proven, it cannot be asserted as mathematical fact. thats the whole point of calling something 'theoretical'. so i don't see how that's even relevant.

...and if the pawn shop is selling something claimed to be authentic, it is also up to them to provide proof. neither party is required to prove a lack of authenticity. pawn shops will of course take up that burden regardless, in order to not miss out on a good purchase.

no it does not indicate motive. all it does is leave room for suspicion, which doesn't hold up when the goal is assigning any guilt, let alone "beyond reasonable doubt".

nah, that's just pure supposition. pleading the 5th cannot be used as supporting evidence of guilt. there's no way to explain around that.

Again, she authenticated them in the two debates, deal with it

You have been easily outdone

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*pointless pawn shop example snipped*

I'm asking you to explain to me why they wouldn't be talking about how fake these are. I never said that means they are guilty because they haven't, but I'm struggling to see the benefit of not doing so if they are genuinely fake.

But as said, if she is referring to them in debates as if they are real, then isn't that reasonable evidence?

She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication

N99W6Zt8nek
kCL4sRfwb9Q

Question: Was Clinton admitting that the wikileaks emails existed or that they existed and were legit, meaning not fabrications

She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication

since you guys keep repeated the same sourceless assertion of clinton authenticating those emails, i guess i was wrong. if you had only said it once or twice, i'd have a case. but after repeat #5 i realized my argument was doomed.

She is the source, asshat

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication

N99W6Zt8nek
kCL4sRfwb9Q

Originally posted by Robtard
Question: Was Clinton admitting that the wikileaks emails existed or that they existed and were legit, meaning not fabrications

Isn't her saying "if you had read the whole thing" an implication that if the person would have read the entire thing they would understand the context of what she said? Which be weird to say if she believed them to be fake.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She clearly said in two different debates about two different emails "if you read the whole thing you will see the whole picture."

That is an admission of authentication

What is your opinion of this:

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=44264

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
She is the source, asshat

name calling -check
citation quote -still pending

They are ****ed when they come out, thats what I think. The liberals will just have more evidence the people they are voting for are corrupt pos's

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
name calling -check
citation quote -still pending

I already provided you the source and the quote, reported for trolling after evidence was provided.

Why would podesta validate them? Not validating them is a much smarter move on his part, as it allows people to express doubt about their authenticity.

The reason she's deflecting stuff about these as much as she can is because she's winning all while ignoring the leaks for the most part.

If in the next couple of weeks the polls start to get close, and their internal polling shows that the leaks are starting to have an impact, she will be forced to confront them in a way she hasn't had to yet.

Personally I don't expect that to happen. I think the people who are really bothered by these emails generally already have their mind made up about her. And barring some legitimately huge leak, I think the damage has been done, and the damage hasn't been all that severe.

Originally posted by BackFire
Why would podesta validate them? Not validating them is a much smarter move on his part, as it allows people to express doubt about their authenticity.

The reason she's deflecting stuff about these as much as she can is because she's winning all while ignoring the leaks for the most part.

If in the next couple of weeks the polls start to get close, and their internal polling shows that the leaks are starting to have an impact, she will be forced to confront them in a way she hasn't had to yet.

Personally I don't expect that to happen. I think the people who are really bothered by these emails generally already have their mind made up about her. And barring some legitimately huge leak, I think the damage has been done, and the damage hasn't been all that severe.
Because people have accepted she is a law breaker who is above the law. It proves that they were never really true change agents like Bernie supposedly was.

Originally posted by BackFire
Why would podesta validate them? Not validating them is a much smarter move on his part, as it allows people to express doubt about their authenticity.

The reason she's deflecting stuff about these as much as she can is because she's winning all while ignoring the leaks for the most part.

If in the next couple of weeks the polls start to get close, and their internal polling shows that the leaks are starting to have an impact, she will be forced to confront them in a way she hasn't had to yet.

Personally I don't expect that to happen. I think the people who are really bothered by these emails generally already have their mind made up about her. And barring some legitimately huge leak, I think the damage has been done, and the damage hasn't been all that severe.

But don't you agree there is a problem when Trumps comments about women(admittedly vile) seem to get more of a rise out of people than the Clinton campaign making plans to cause riots at rallies?

I agree with you 100% the damage hasn't been severe and *that* is what worries me. It's one thing to say they are fake, but I'm just amazed people seem content to just ignore these. By "people" I mean the media.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
name calling -check
citation quote -still pending https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKRYrIzXKtY

>citation

Originally posted by Its2016
vKRYrIzXKtY

>citation

Originally posted by Robtard
Question: Was Clinton admitting that the wikileaks emails existed or that they existed and were legit, meaning not fabrications Wallace mentioned their source for her emails was wikileaks. Clinton clearly says "what I was saying" in reference to the email and the question regarding immigration, then used scare tactics against Russia so people vote for her. Youre braindead. Youre immensely butthurt you thought wikileaks was nothing. Youre a failure.


B-b-but Donald Drumpf is an clown.

Face it, you ****ing lose.

Clinton admitting it isn't proof for them. It has to come from CNN to be true.

According to liberals on KMC Chris Wallace, Anderson Cooper and Martha Raditz were using fake evidence to question Hillary Clinton in a Presidential debate.

Qm7H1b5dA-c i only need trump to win nevada to make a profit.

OWR-jWK_MG8 CNN getting owned. XD

still no quotes provided. how expected.

I provided the quotes, you ignored them

"CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called “Lincoln.” It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic."

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still no quotes provided. how expected. The video isnt enough for you?

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/hillary-clinton-quotes-third-presidential-debate-best-funny-october-19-2016/

He will deny the quotes now.

Quotes arent good enough!

Originally posted by Its2016
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/hillary-clinton-quotes-third-presidential-debate-best-funny-october-19-2016/

Oh look he ran off

crylaugh he also reported us to backfire, did you see that?

Where?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Where? last page a wild backfire appeared to ask sensible questions and not shitty trolling.

still no quotes of hillary authenticating emails. just irrelevant videos and quotes, and celebratory circlejerking. still waiting.

Oh so just like his friend bardock, trolls and baits till he gets a reaction, then reports you.

Reported

Originally posted by Its2016
crylaugh he also reported us to backfire, did you see that?

i didn't report anyone you pathetic baby.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i didn't report anyone you pathetic baby. mustve been rob.

I posted the quotes

i saw a quote posted about her lincoln reference. thanks for that.

now how about something relevant?

GFUS

same irrelevant quote that has nothing to do with the emails.

'TI.exe has encountered a error'

Wallace: Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank for which you were paid $225,000, we've learned from Wikileaks, that you said this. And I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”

Trump: Thank you.

Wallace: That's the question. Please, quiet, everybody. Is that your dream? Open borders?

Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders.

Originally posted by Its2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKRYrIzXKtY

>citation

then help me since i'm so stupid, and point out which part of that quote authenticates the wikileaks emails.

yep no proof from the trumpsters. just red herrings and other bs

Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders.

So this must have been what it was like in the old days watching a rendition of "Who's on first" over and over again.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
then help me since i'm so stupid, and point out which part of that quote authenticates the wikileaks emails.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders.

FFS TI, she was addressing a transcript of a speech she made. that has nothing to do with the emails. is it that difficult, or are you just playing games?

The transcript came from the emails you idiot.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

it's actually illegal to view the wikileaks documents btw, it was announced on the news. they are stolen to rig the election remember... kind of a big deal

For me the problem with them not addressing this at all is that..well, it then won't get addressed. The media barely speaks about it, the DNC don't seem to want to specifically comment on it.

Instead of really getting to the bottom of it..it will just fizzle away.

Not so much denial as the vast majority of the American public is too ****ing retarded to care about the reveals.

Most idiots would rather talk about HURR HURR HE GRABBED HER BY THE PUSSY, instead of finding out Hillary was in bed with the media, thinks her voters are idiots, and that Debbie Schultz and the DNC establishment ****ed over Bernie Sanders.

that does not authenticate the wikileaks emails. it only authenticates that particular speech.

Which came from the emails which was leaked. Which she refused to release.

Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
FFS TI, she was addressing a transcript of a speech she made. that has nothing to do with the emails. is it that difficult, or are you just playing games? Originally posted by Bashar Teg
then help me since i'm so stupid, and point out which part of that quote authenticates the wikileaks emails.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wallace: Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank for which you were paid $225,000, we've learned from Wikileaks, that you said this. And I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”

Trump: Thank you.

Wallace: That's the question. Please, quiet, everybody. Is that your dream? Open borders?

Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy. We trade more energy with our neighbors than we trade with the rest of the world combined. And I do want us to have an electric grid, an energy system that crosses borders. Check out that word wikileaks.

Now use your liberal logic again.

http://imgur.com/r/The_Donald/hNJA5iG

still no authentication of the emails. just red herrings and posturting.

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
it's actually illegal to view the wikileaks documents btw, it was announced on the news. they are stolen to rig the election remember... kind of a big deal

I see, but is rigging an election really that big of a deal? I dunno, if people don't think trying to start riots at your opponents rallies is a big deal, at this point..what will make them give a shit? We need Hilary, on video, sacrificing a baby.

That is what it will take, but I know for a fact they do not allow cameras inside their baby sacrifices.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still no authentication of the emails. just red herrings and posturting.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The transcript came from the emails you idiot.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
it's actually illegal to view the wikileaks documents btw, it was announced on the news. they are stolen to rig the election remember... kind of a big deal

Nope. 1st Amendment and all

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/10/17/remember-its-illegal-to-possess-wikileaks-clinton-emails-but-its-different-for-the-media-says-cnns-chris-cuomo/?utm_term=.e2a1056387fc

Originally posted by aalyasecura95
it's actually illegal to view the wikileaks documents btw, it was announced on the news. they are stolen to rig the election remember... kind of a big deal

they were certainly meant to impact the election, but i'd hardly call it 'rigging'

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
they were certainly meant to impact the election, but i'd hardly call it 'rigging'

Concession accepted

Just plead ignorance and say you didn't know it was wrong until someone told you it was. That usually seems to be a valid way of getting out of legal issues.

V7ZHsL_jmZ8

it was confirmed and they would have redacted it if it were wrong. a popular news outlet like cnn won't lie

that's nice TI. good job on your empty fake-win. have a drink with xyz and celebrate. he's already got his pre-game on, obviously.

Can I use you as a source for my defense? I can say that I didn't know this was wrong until the internet told me. No harm, no foul, right?

we've learned from Wikileaks, that you said this. And I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”

Trump: Thank you.

Wallace: That's the question. Please, quiet, everybody. Is that your dream? Open borders?

Clinton: If you went on to read the rest of the sentence, I was talking about energy.

>but but, muh speech, she was talking about something else
>muh russia

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The transcript came from the emails you idiot.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 actual email shes referring to.

>muh media is on my side
>link me a shill website and i will believe you, protip, you cant

Say the line, shill.

http://imgur.com/r/The_Donald/hNJA5iG

Originally posted by aalyasecura95

No, it's not illegal to access classified information. It's illegal to store classified information on an unauthorized server, but it's not illegal to access it.

Originally posted by Surtur
Can I use you as a source for my defense? I can say that I didn't know this was wrong until the internet told me. No harm, no foul, right?

might work, but hire a good lawyer.

I'm just going to print out this topic and put the contents in a safe, just to be on the safe side.

Now I know who the top suspects will be if this safe is tampered with. Well, my cat is at the top of the list, but you people are next.

Originally posted by Surtur
Just plead ignorance and say you didn't know it was wrong until someone told you it was. That usually seems to be a valid way of getting out of legal issues. got me out of paying tax. Although, they believe min wage junkies are ignorant. Doesnt work for presidential nominees.

Originally posted by Its2016
got me out of paying tax. Although, they believe min wage junkies are ignorant. Doesnt work for presidential nominees.

If you took advantage of some legal way to avoid paying some taxes then my only question is..Damien, when do you reveal yourself to the world as the anti-christ?

Originally posted by Surtur
If you took advantage of some legal way to avoid paying some taxes then my only question is..Damien, when do you reveal yourself to the world as the anti-christ? oh no i played ignorance to informing the government. I should have told them i had a job and now i have to show them payslips or bank statements. Which is a pain.

Originally posted by Its2016
oh no i played ignorance to informing the government. I should have told them i had a job and now i have to show them payslips or bank statements. Which is a pain.

Oh thank god you didn't legally try to avoid paying more money than you had to.

Wanna bet your life savings
^the new joke

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Wanna bet your life savings
^the new joke

To be honest I think the dude just really likes gambling. Which is cool, we all have our vices.

He just seems to be way to into it though.

I doubt it, he is all talk, he don't have the balls to bet any real money other then what his mom gives him for lunch.

Dolos was never that smart. He actually admitted Asnter was smarter than him.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I doubt it, Dolos was never that smart. He actually admitted Asnter was smarter then him.
than*

And **** you too.

Originally posted by Surtur
Oh thank god you didn't legally try to avoid paying more money than you had to. oh no. Wikileaks are fake, even when hillary literally references them in the debates to cover her ass.

Salty liberals should have gotten on the trump train when they had a chance, but they picked Bernie Sanders. XD
Basher Teg has me on ignore. This stops me from informing him travesties within his beloved democrat party. Sad times.

Originally posted by Astner
than*

And **** you too.

Why do you have a problem with that?

So CNN admitting they are hacked and illegal to read besides the media is enough authenticity, unless CNN is lying

Who was this dolos person?

Originally posted by Surtur
Who was this dolos person?

Originally posted by Astner
He's this guy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So CNN admitting they are hacked and illegal to read besides the media is enough authenticity, unless CNN is lying

Perhaps it's also illegal to read hacked edited emails. Damn the legalities of this are complex.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial


I get that, but why are you saying this other poster is now dolos? Or is it merely he just behaves like this person?

Basher irl

I probably shouldn't had dropped his name. Now he's logged off.

Originally posted by Surtur
I get that, but why are you saying this other poster is now dolos? Or is it merely he just behaves like this person?

Yea its obvious now, and you notice as soon as it was brought up he ran off.

Okay but I guess who WAS dolos? I can only tell so much about someone from their profile.

Originally posted by Its2016
Basher irl

Yea bash got owned pretty bad in the pile on.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay but I guess who WAS dolos? I can only tell so much about someone from their profile.

Some guy with Asperger Syndrome

Originally posted by Its2016
Basher irl

angry because i prevented you from flooding my inbox with your drunk-mail? dawwww i'm sowwy :'(

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Some guy with Asperger Syndrome

Why would being associated someone with dolos make them log off?

Okay wait..I see one of the reasons he was banned was due to posting snuff gifs.

Okay so I still can't see how you guys connected that he is this same person?

Its ok Al Bashar, you got owned

Originally posted by Surtur
Why would being associated someone with dolos make them log off?

Okay wait..I see one of the reasons he was banned was due to posting snuff gifs.

Okay so I still can't see how you guys connected that he is this same person?

Dude? Go read his posts

Why all the questions

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Yea bash got owned pretty bad in the pile on.

*desperate feel-smart circlejerk

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Dude? Go read his posts

Why all the questions

Because I would find it truly hilarious if this person truly is DOLOS lol. That's just too comical to pass up.

You need to read his posts and make your own comparison.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*desperate feel-smart circlejerk

Which is what you normally do but you look dumb doing it.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Which is what you normally do but you look dumb doing it.

"...right guys?"

Wrong

Originally posted by Robtard
Question: Was Clinton admitting that the wikileaks emails existed or that they existed and were legit, meaning not fabrications

Originally posted by Its2016
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/hillary-clinton-quotes-third-presidential-debate-best-funny-october-19-2016/

Was that in response to me?

What 20,000 pages of hacked WikiLeaks emails teach us about Hillary Clinton

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/20/13308108/wikileaks-podesta-hillary-clinton

don't expect a straight answer. they're still trying to prove that hillary acknowledging a single leaked transcript is the same as an authentication of any/all the emails. more proof that winning an argument with well informed people is difficult, but winning an argument with idiots is impossible.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
don't expect a straight answer. they're still trying to prove that hillary acknowledging a single leaked transcript is the same as an authentication of the emails. more proof that winning an argument with well informed people is difficult, but winning an argument with idiots is impossible.

Says the idiot who deny's her saying "if you read the rest of the transcript" that came from the hacked emails

Originally posted by Robtard
"i was saying" is her admitting she said what was in the email.

I guess she was lying? Which is why they don't believe her.

no you just lack the ability to reason, so there really is no point in explaining it to you anymore. just feel like you won and celebrate being awesome