APNewsBreak: US declares 22 Clinton emails 'top secret'

MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Your troll game is not very good. Nobody takes you seriously when you say dumb shit. Which happens to be most of the time.

I think what Chesus was getting at, is IF you do post a citation from a "garbage" source, like breitbart or faux noose, you should be prepared to have other citations that can also support it. If you can't, which likely you can't... then the only basis for your information is coming from ONE (un-credible) news source.

Or in easier terms for you to understand. If it's so true, you should be able to cite more than one source. If you can't, well... you've got no leg to stand on.

And I don't mean literally you don't have a leg to stand on, I have no idea whether or not you have both your legs or not. "No leg to stand on", is a figure of speech. Would you like for me to explain what "figure of speech" means?
Click to expand...
Thank you for demonstrating exactly why providing sources to libs is a waste of time. You don't decide what is or isn't a "garbage" source, I do. I have the sole vote on what is or isn't a credible source and pal, your sources are shit. I know you think you and the ilk like you have that say, but like almost everything else you believe, you're wrong.

Sources such as NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, AL JAZEERA, NY TIMES, HUFFPO, etc...are all garbage and shall be given zero credibility. When YOU can provide information from sources that I find credible, I'll give it the attention it deserves. As I am the sole arbiter of what sources are acceptable, the burden is on you and yours. Sorry if you actually believed you had that authority.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Thank you for demonstrating exactly why providing sources to libs is a waste of time. You don't decide what is or isn't a "garbage" source, I do. I have the sole vote on what is or isn't a credible source and pal, your sources are shit. I know you think you and the ilk like you have that say, but like almost everything else you believe, you're wrong.

Sources such as NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, AL JAZEERA, NY TIMES, HUFFPO, etc...are all garbage and shall be given zero credibility. When YOU can provide information from sources that I find credible, I'll give it the attention it deserves. As I am the sole arbiter of what sources are acceptable, the burden is on you and yours. Sorry if you actually believed you had that authority.
Click to expand...
Lol
You went full retard. The one source you mentioned contradicts what you allege.
You are such a tard
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Thank you for demonstrating exactly why providing sources to libs is a waste of time. You don't decide what is or isn't a "garbage" source, I do. I have the sole vote on what is or isn't a credible source and pal, your sources are shit. I know you think you and the ilk like you have that say, but like almost everything else you believe, you're wrong.

Sources such as NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, AL JAZEERA, NY TIMES, HUFFPO, etc...are all garbage and shall be given zero credibility. When YOU can provide information from sources that I find credible, I'll give it the attention it deserves. As I am the sole arbiter of what sources are acceptable, the burden is on you and yours. Sorry if you actually believed you had that authority.
Click to expand...
You have a massive inferiority complex
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Lol
You went full retard. The one source you mentioned contradicts what you allege.
Click to expand...
The quoted text in my first post on the subject came DIRECTLY from the CNN article that dropped right after the emails were released. Do you actually dispute the existence of those exact words in an email from Clinton to her staff? If you do, you're hopeless and I tire of your ignorance.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
The quoted text in my first post on the subject came DIRECTLY from the CNN article that dropped right after the emails were released. Do you actually dispute the existence of those exact words in an email from Clinton to her staff? If you do, you're hopeless and I tire of your ignorance.
Click to expand...
Cnn mentioned a FAX They were having problems sending. Nothing was mentioned about removing top secret headers. Clinton instructed her aides to send the talking points if they still couldn't get the secure fax to work. State department officials said their network contains non classified documents.
You Sherlock Holmes added 2+2 and came up with 46.
You really are fucking stupid
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Thank you for demonstrating exactly why providing sources to libs is a waste of time. You don't decide what is or isn't a "garbage" source, I do. I have the sole vote on what is or isn't a credible source and pal, your sources are shit. I know you think you and the ilk like you have that say, but like almost everything else you believe, you're wrong.

Sources such as NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, AL JAZEERA, NY TIMES, HUFFPO, etc...are all garbage and shall be given zero credibility. When YOU can provide information from sources that I find credible, I'll give it the attention it deserves. As I am the sole arbiter of what sources are acceptable, the burden is on you and yours. Sorry if you actually believed you had that authority.
Click to expand...
You so silly. And your tiny penis is incredibly tiny.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
The quoted text in my first post on the subject came DIRECTLY from the CNN article that dropped right after the emails were released. Do you actually dispute the existence of those exact words in an email from Clinton to her staff? If you do, you're hopeless and I tire of your ignorance.
Click to expand...
MuyLocoNC said:
The quoted text in my first post on the subject came DIRECTLY from the CNN article that dropped right after the emails were released. Do you actually dispute the existence of those exact words in an email from Clinton to her staff? If you do, you're hopeless and I tire of your ignorance.
Click to expand...
On June 16, 2011, top Clinton aide Jake Sullivan wrote to Clinton to say she would get "tps" -- presumably short for "talking points" that evening. The subject of the email is redacted so it's not clear what topic these points covered.


The next morning, Clinton wrote back to say she hadn't received them yet, and after a few minutes Sullivan responded that staff were having issues sending the document in a secure fax but that they were "working on it."

"If they can't," Clinton replies, "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure

A State Department official declined to comment on Grassley's statement, but told CNN earlier in the day that the department has "no indication at this time that the document being discussed was emailed to her."

"I'm not going to speculate about whether the document being discussed was classified," this official added. "Generally speaking, I can say that just because a document is sent via a secure method doesn't mean that it's classified. Many documents that are created or stored on a secure system are not classified."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top