Spygate is unravelling

[Joe]

What bullshit. Republicans like you don't give a shit about Republican corruption.

Cunt a Republican? That's an "L" for not likely.

[Cunt]

You seem to be making shit up.

You seem to think the Dems aren't corrupt.

You know Killary got told to answer, finally, about that private email server, right?

And what has Assange got to do with this?

[pErvinalia]

You seem to be making shit up.

You seem to think the Dems aren't corrupt.

You seem to be still making shit up.

[Cunt]

You seem to be making shit up.

You seem to think the Dems aren't corrupt.

You seem to be still making shit up.

Who will they replace Biden with?

Bonus question - do you think people will still call it democratic, because, I mean, that's right there in the NAME.

[rainbow]

You know Killary got told to answer, finally, about that private email server, right?

You haven't explained why anyone should care. She isn't the President.

And what has Assange got to do with this?

Exactly!

[Brian Peacock]

It's plainly silly to assume that the only reason to criticise Trump and the Republicans is because we're all in love with the Democrats - but I guess that's what strawmen are good for eh? When one's point relies on faulty, fallacious thinking like that then one doesn't even have a point.

[Hermit]

It's plainly silly to assume that the only reason to criticise Trump and the Republicans is because we're all in love with the Democrats - but I guess that's what strawmen are good for eh? When one's point relies on faulty, fallacious thinking like that then one doesn't even have a point.

And it's not the first time our member from Yellowknife employs that strawman.

[Cunt]

You know Killary got told to answer, finally, about that private email server, right?

You haven't explained why anyone should care. She isn't the President.

And what has Assange got to do with this?

Exactly!

And Snowden?

Your incuriosity about Hillary, and why she had a secret server, why she destroyed info that had been requested, is quite telling. Either you don't know, or you don't care. Either is kind of amusing, especially when you are asking me to lead you through it.

Lets just say, it isn't at ALL important to you. Spygate, even if it is found to be as sinister as the rumours state, won't be of interest either. I hope you are just here to have some sport with me, rather than failing to understand the basics of the idea.

[JimC]

There is no substantial "news" about any scandal or legal issues involving Hillary Clinton at the moment, only the usual bullshit rumours from dodgy right-wing sources, which to you, of course, is the gospel according to Q...

[Cunt]

There is no substantial "news" about any scandal or legal issues involving Hillary Clinton at the moment, only the usual bullshit rumours from dodgy right-wing sources, which to you, of course, is the gospel according to Q...

She has to testify.

Fitton got it done.

Of course, with her emails being old news, you may choose to ignore them.

It connects to spygate, but since I think you don't believe in it, it should also be of no consequence.

Call Judicial Watch 'dodgy right-wing sources' all you want. The judges (who are more informed than you, believe it or not) had a more informed opinion about them. From a random article describing this (SO easy to find - this was MSNBC, the publicity arm of the DNC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/hillary ... rules.html

“It is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton,” Judge Royce Lamberth said in his order issued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where Judicial Watch is suing the State Department over its handling of searches for Clinton’s emails.

“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth wrote.

Well, no biggie. It doesn't matter anyway, right?

[JimC]

So, some legal manoeuvring 4 months ago is now current news...

[Cunt]

So, some legal manoeuvring 4 months ago is now current news...

Well, maybe you can find newer stuff. This is a pretty thin crop this year.

Maybe we'll have a busy summer. I think her testimony is September, just in time for the election fervor.

ANY time now, JimC

[Tero]

[Joe]

There is no substantial "news" about any scandal or legal issues involving Hillary Clinton at the moment, only the usual bullshit rumours from dodgy right-wing sources, which to you, of course, is the gospel according to Q...

She has to testify.

Fitton got it done.

Of course, with her emails being old news, you may choose to ignore them.

It connects to spygate, but since I think you don't believe in it, it should also be of no consequence.

Call Judicial Watch 'dodgy right-wing sources' all you want. The judges (who are more informed than you, believe it or not) had a more informed opinion about them. From a random article describing this (SO easy to find - this was MSNBC, the publicity arm of the DNC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/hillary ... rules.html

“It is time to hear directly from Secretary Clinton,” Judge Royce Lamberth said in his order issued in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., where Judicial Watch is suing the State Department over its handling of searches for Clinton’s emails.

“As extensive as the existing record is, it does not sufficiently explain Secretary Clinton’s state of mind when she decided it would be an acceptable practice to set up and use a private server to conduct State Department business,” Lamberth wrote.

Well, no biggie. It doesn't matter anyway, right?

Yeah, she has to testify about her emails in a civil suit where she's not the defendant, but so what? That was when she was Secretary of State, a job she left February 1, 2013.

Trump announced he was running for President on June 16, 2015. So what connects them to spygate, and why should I believe you?

After all, every time I check out one of your claims it turns out you're mistaken or got fooled by some fake news. Nothing personal Cunt, but I count you right up there next to The Guardian for reliability, so how about linking to your sources and quoting the pertinent bits like the other posters do? I don't have the time or inclination to do your homework for you.

Of course, you may be too tired from all that working out to make a real case. If so, you should ask the big question that neither Q nor anybody else has asked: How do Ingersoll Lockwood's prophetic writings fit into this? Consider that a bread crumb.

Answer that and you might be onto something "they" don't want you to know.

[Cunt]

Why would you be suggesting it is 'my home work'?

Is this not something of broader public interest? Or is your interest solely in finding out if I'm right or wrong about the particulars.

I know several of you have suggested that 'Judicial Watch' is unreliable, but the character of Fitton doesn't come into it much, once judges have ruled.

It's not just her emails, it's the rest of her contacts. Why would she want to keep them on a server that the government couldn't review?

Probably really juicy recipes...wouldn't want those getting into the public eye.