it was confirmed and they would have redacted it if it were wrong. a popular news outlet like cnn won't lie
Pants on fire
“Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us.”
Ah, isn’t it lovely to be so special, so specially immune from the law? Except it’s not at all different for the media. The First Amendment offers the same protection to the media as to the rest of us, including when it comes to possessing or distributing illegally obtained material (so long as you weren’t involved in the original illegal hack or interception or leak). Indeed, in the 2001 Bartnicki v. Vopper decision, the Supreme Court rejected even civil liability for distributing illegally intercepted cellphone calls, and expressly refused to distinguish the media from others:
The . . . question is whether the application of these statutes [that purport to ban distributing illegally obtained material, even when one wasn’t involved in the distribution,] in such circumstances violates the First Amendment. [Footnote: In answering this question, we draw no distinction between the media respondents and Yocum.]
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.â€
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-Immemorialactual email shes referring to.
The transcript came from the emails you idiot.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
>muh media is on my side
>link me a shill website and i will believe you, protip, you cant
Say the line, shill.
Originally posted by Surturgot me out of paying tax. Although, they believe min wage junkies are ignorant. Doesnt work for presidential nominees.
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.
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 Surturoh 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.
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 Surturoh no. Wikileaks are fake, even when hillary literally references them in the debates to cover her ass.
Oh thank god you didn't legally try to avoid paying more money than you had to.
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.