Hillary’s EmailGate Goes Nuclear

Hillary Clinton can laugh any scandal off, right?!

>>15745
I think she's all out of wishes now.

>>15746
She has 9 lives and so does Bill which makes it a total of 18...

>>15746
Oh please
She's a woman that's sticking up for minorities and other "impoverished" groups
This fucking psycho is better protected than your typical plot armored MC

Only BEHnie SANdahs can help us now

>it's totally a scandal now guys, honest!
fuck off

>>15787
>LALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING

Clinton thinks classified info can just be passed around like it's everyday gossip in the comfort of her own damn home, her idea of "security" is a joke.

Don't breath in the sand while your head's down there.

>>15787
Fuck those crooks. They've gotten away with murder (maybe literally). If I did what she did, the government would have my job and my ass.

Head for the Hill's

Lock up Rodham

Send Clinton to the Clink.

>>15786
>not Trump

Hillary isn't even under criminal investigation, guys...

Stop grasping at straws.

>>15792
Yes, we are subject to different rules from the elite who run the country. Did it take the Clintons for you to figure this out?

>>15804
What? She's being investigated by the FBI

>>15812
No she isn't. You've bought into the right wing clickbait,.. There is no criminal indictment at all, only 1 disgraced former US attorney who says she MIGHT be indicted. Every right wing hack news source is running with the story when it has no basis in reality.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/07/right-wing-media-cite-discredited-republican-la/207839

>>15813
Didn't you post this in the other thread and get BTFO already?

>>15815
They couldn't refute it there and you can't refute it now.

Try if you might.

if only this information was known when she was grilled for 11 hours straight during that totally not at all political theater by the Benghazi special committee investigating the last thing that was totally a scandal we're serious this time guys


Fuck off.

>>15819
They want to waste another few million taxpayer dollars on the media circus because they think it's hurting Hillary.

>>15816
You never refuted anything, because that article is only an attack on the source, and not the investigation itself, nor does it bother to even try and pretend to take in information from the FBI itself that is running a very real and active probe on the entire state department, hence the court order to deliver every single state department email to the FBI.

Holy christ, the damage control is really off the charts. Why the fuck do people suck Hillary's dick so much when the evidence is LITERALLY FUCKING LITERALLY publicly available now?

>>15820
>Investigating criminal wrongdoing in the government is a waste of money

What is wrong with you hopeless retards? This is like one of the most basic functions of government, and if you don't like the cost then maybe you should call up the state department and tell them to stop stonewalling the investigation for years on end so it didn't cost millions to fucking do it.

Kill yourself, seriously. Do the entire gene pool a huge favor and remove your inability to think critically, or at all, from our bloodline.

>>15825
Republicans have openly admitted its a political farce, go away.

>>15823
It can't be an attack on the source when it's made up entirely of other sources, idiot. Try harder.
>>Right-wing media are reporting discredited Republican lawyer Joseph diGenova's baseless claim that Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton committed "numerous federal crimes" with her private email use, failing to note that Clinton is not the target of the FBI's investigation and that the probe is not criminal in nature.

>>15823
Just stop.

There's no criminal investigation.

Please grow up.

>>15825
>tell them to stop stonewalling the investigation
lel

>Why Won't Republicans Release the Benghazi Committee's Interview with Sidney Blumenthal?
>Republicans have brought up his name repeatedly but blocked a request to unseal a transcript of his testimony.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/10/hillary-clinton-benghazi-sidney-blumenthal-trey-gowdy-elijah-cummings
>Benghazi Committee Interviewed Witnesses without even Notifying Democratic Members
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/1/1426698/-Benghazi-Committee-Interviewed-Witnesses-without-even-Notifying-Democratic-Members
>The select committee, Republicans figured, would finally nail Clinton. It scrapped plans to publicly interrogate other officials. It subpoenaed Clinton’s emails and deposed her aides. Gradually, the GOP’s fixation on her became the story. Three weeks ago, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy boasted that the committee’s investigation had driven down Clinton’s poll numbers. Then a former Republican staffer on the committee said he had been fired for refusing to focus on Clinton.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/the_benghazi_hearing_was_a_self_destructive_partisan_embarrassment_for_the.html

>>15830
>>15835
You're pathetic.

>>15832
So wanna explain how her violation of the espionage act is made up? Or the destroying of the evidence thereof being made up? Or the state department taking years to release any information being made up?

>>15836
Oh boo hoo those nasty Republicans

I guess poor Hilldog is innocent and they're just a bunch of big bullies instead of people actually doing their jobs for once and going after the head of a major government department that violated the law nobody knows how many times.

This isn't a left vs right battle, you partisan hacks, this is a battle over massive government corruption, and if you want to shit on Republicans, which I'm sure nobody in the world minds, then you can't do so while willfully ignoring the actual evidence produced by these various investigations.

The state department broke the law, covered it up, and is running damage control. If this was a Republican state department doing this, I bet you wimps would be stroking your babydicks over it to no end.

Corruption and the prosecution thereof is not a party issue, and if you act like it is then all you do is aid and abed the actual criminals, instead of allowing investigations to run their course and happily at that, because it at least makes government slightly more transparent.

Also, you never even tried to address the stonewalling of the state department, but sweet deflection bro, I guess since one side doesn't release information despite NOT being the target of any investigation, then that means the original topic is invalid. Maybe rub a few braincells together and stop acting like a child.

>>15839
>So wanna explain how her violation of the espionage act is made up?
Show me one sitting US attorney who is even discussing the espionage act applying toward anyone but Julian Assange and Edward Snowden.

protip: you can't unless you're "Chelsea" Manning

>>15843
I never said she was innocent. It's just stupid to attack her on something so baseless when there is so many other legitimate things to attack her on, like her setting up the foundation for the TPP as SoS and then telling her supporters she's against it, for one thing.

>>15839
>You're pathetic
B T F O
T
F
O

>>15844
>Somebody else hasn't said it so it didn't happen

>(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

>(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904

I'm only getting butthurt here because people like you can't think for yourselves, and have to sit around waiting for teacher to tell you right from wrong or the basic publicly available facts of the matter.

>>15849
What don't you understand about the only person saying she's going to jail is a discredited Republican lawyer named Joseph diGenova ? The entirety of the right wing media from Breitbart to The Weekly Standard to The Laura Ingraham Show is treating him like he still actually works for the Justice Department and can file charges against her but he doesn't and can't.

Cry moar that nothing is going to happen.

>>15849
m8, you're arguing with someone who is literally being paid to support Hillary on social media. Don't waste your time.

>>15854
lel I'm not even a democrat.

Old Joe DiGenova doesn't even have a wikipedia page, he keeps deleting it.

But his wife does:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Toensing
>Emily Bazelon of Slate.com has called Toensing "a blanketer of the airwaves about the tawdriness of the Lewinsky affair."[2] Toensing and her husband made regular appearances on television claiming that they were the target of investigations by Clinton Administration.[4]
Involvement in Valerie Plame scandal
Main article: Plame affair

>Toensing was retained by media organizations to comment on the Plame Affair. In March 2005 Toensing submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Matt Cooper and Judith Miller, two journalists who were subpoenaed in the Valerie Plame investigation for refusing to reveal information obtained from confidential sources.

>In the brief, she "argued that the law couldn't have been broken when Valerie Plame's cover as a CIA agent was blown because her status wasn't really covert."[2] She also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23, 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as an undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the article (by Robert Novak) that revealed her status as a CIA employee.

So basically she and her husband are both right wing hacks and have a long term commitment to make money off of discrediting the clintons. And this is the guy who is the only one being quoted by The Washington Times, The Washington Examiner, Newsmax and The Daily Caller as the guy saying she's going to jail. Good luck with that.

>>15854
It's really pathetic, isn't it?

>>15858
>pathetic
B T F O
T
F
O

Liberals BTFO again!!

>>15856
Nobody's talking about this guy but you, Schlomo.

Hillary is above the law.

>>15861
Wrong, he is the reason nobody outside of conservative circlejerk media is saying she has a chance of going to jail.

>>15864
She never broke any laws to begin with.

>>15891
>(e) whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, note, or information, relating to the national defence, through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be list, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

>(d) whoever, lawfully or unlawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blue print, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defence, wilfully communicates or transmits or attempts to communicate or transmit the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it; or

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904

>>15899
FACT: There Is No Evidence That Clinton Personally Signed Off On A Cable Reducing Security In Benghazi

FACT: The State Department Did Not Watch The Benghazi Attacks Unfold In Real Time

FACT: Hillary Clinton Was Not Unaccounted For During The Attacks, She Was In Continuous Contact With Administration Officials

FACT: Contrary To Conservative Conspiracies, Clinton Missed A Scheduled Benghazi Hearing After Being Injured

FACT: Clinton's "What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make" Comment Was Referring To The Administration's Post-Attack Talking Points, Not Tragic Consequences Of Attack

FACT: Intelligence Community, The Suspected Attackers, And Eyewitnesses All Linked The Inflammatory Anti-Islam Video To The Attacks

FACT: There Is No Proof Clinton's State Department Scrubbed, Altered, Or Covered Up Any Benghazi Documents

FACT: Benghazi Witnesses Spoke To Federal Officials And Congress, And Were Not Blocked From Coming Forward By Clinton

FACT: Contrary To Consevative Media Smears, Clinton Said She Took Responsibility For The Benghazi Attack

FACT: While Conservatives Claimed She Was Silent, Clinton Spoke Extensively About Benghazi Following Attack

FACT: Clinton's Use Of A Personal Email Account Was Legal And Did Not Violate State Department Policy

FACT: Clinton Is Not The Subject Of A Criminal Investigation Over Her Emails

FACT: Clinton Did Not Receive Any Emails Labeled As "Classified" Or "Top Secret" At The Time They Were Sent

FACT:Clinton's Use Of A Private Server Did Not Raise Additional Questions About The Retroactive Classification Of Her Emails

FACT: Conservative Comparisons Of Clinton To Petraeus Ignore The Fact That Unlike Petraeus, There's No Evidence Clinton Knowingly Emailed Classified Information

FACT: CIA Says Clinton Did Not Expose Classified Information About Libyan Intelligence Source With Email Contrary To Conservative Claims

>>15902
[citation needed]

>>15904
http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/10/21/a-comprehensive-guide-to-myths-and-facts-about/206289

>Government Officials: None Of The Emails Were Marked As "Classified" When They Were Sent. The Washington Post reported that when the ICIG first "found information that should have been designated as classified" in four emails from Clinton's server -- two of which he now says contain "top secret" information -- government officials acknowledged that the emails were not marked as classified when they were sent (emphasis added):

>The Justice Department said Friday that it has been notified of a potential compromise of classified information in connection with the private e-mail account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while serving as secretary of state.

>A Justice official said the department had received a "referral" on the matter, which the inspector general of the intelligence agencies later acknowledged came from him.

>The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, said in a separate statement that he had found information that should have been designated as classified in four e-mails out of a "limited sample" of 40 that his agency reviewed. As a result, he said, he made the "security referral," acting under a federal law that requires alerting the FBI to any potential compromises of national security information.

>Officials acknowledged that none of the e-mails reviewed so far contain information that was marked classified when they were sent. But a new inquiry would prolong the political controversy Clinton is facing over her unorthodox e-mail system. [The Washington Post, 7/24/15]

>>15902
>>15906
The emails don't need to be marked as anything. It's the duty of the state department, especially the head of the state department, to know what is and is not classified.

Failure to handle classified information properly is a violation of the espionage act, whether it's willful or not. There is no distinction in the statue for "accidental" mishandling of classified information, rather the specific term "gross negligence", is used, and as the head of the state department is responsible for knowing what is and is not secret, transference of said information unsecured is the definition of gross negligence.

The defense of Hillary being ignorant, unaware, or unknowledgable, is a direct violation of her position and duties as the head of the state department, and ignorance of the law is not a defense against the law in any way, shape or form.

>Clinton's Use Of A Personal Email Account Was Legal And Did Not Violate State Department Policy
The destruction of, and denial of the existence of, 30,000 of her emails, which contained 1,300+ classified and secret information, is not only a violation of the espionage act, but the willful destruction of government property, and is a federal crime.

Stop trying to dump bullshit and eat a bullet.

>>15911
>It's the duty of the state department, especially the head of the state department, to know what is and is not classified.
You don't get it, it's the duty of the state department to decide what is classifiable or not, just as much as it is the CIA or the military. All of them can classify something at any point that it gets spread around the chain of intelligence.

The Benghazi Committee knows that the classified parts of the testimony, including the parts about Hillary's emails, exonerate her, which is why they haven't and won't ever release the testimony and won't call real witnesses.

>>15913
>it's the duty of the state department to decide what is classifiable or not
Yeah, and they didn't do that.

Also, the State Department has no authority over TOP SECRET information, and, as far I know, 2 TOP SECRET messages were sent via her private email server.

No doubt that is a much larger crime than just sending CLASSIFIED emails unsecured, so you're right, it's even worse for her now.

So go ahead and twist yourself into knots trying to hand wave away Hillary letting TOP SECRET information potentially leak and damage god knows what US interests. If this was 100 years ago she would be treated as a spy and executed.

>>15919
>Yeah, and they didn't do that.
You're right, they didn't do that.

You know what that mean? It means it wasn't classified when the State Department had the information, only when it was passed down the chain and the military classified it. So that means the State Department as the originator of the information didn't have any classified material when it passed it on. That's why the FBI is doing the routine investigation into who didn't have clearance but may have seen it as they do any time something gets classified.

>>15923
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS ALWAYS CLASSIFIED UNTIL IT IS DECLASSIFIED NO MATTER WHAT.

IF IT WAS MILITARY INTELLIGENCE THEN ONLY THE MILITARY CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT INFORMATION CAN BE DECLASSIFIED, MEANING IT MUST BE HANDLED AS CLASSIFIED INFORMATION PRIOR TO THEIR TAKING POSSESSION OF SAID INFORMATION.

MISHANDLING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS A FELONY THAT CARRIES 2 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON, AS WELL AS THE DISBARMENT FROM HOLDING A PUBLIC OFFICE, AND MISHANDLING TOP SECRET INFORMATION CAN BORDER ON TREASON DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF THE INFORMATION

TO DATE, HILLARY'S UNPROTECTED SERVER HAS BEEN FOUND TO CONTAIN 1,340 CLASSIFIED EMAILS THAT MAY HAVE FALLEN INTO ENEMY HANDS. THE MERE EXISTENCE OF THAT FACT MEANS THAT HILLARY IS IN VIOLATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT AND CANNOT SERVE IN ANOTHER PUBLIC OFFICE AND MAY BE SENT TO FEDERAL PRISON FOR 1,340 * 2 YEARS, IF NOT TRIED FOR TREASON.

>>15936
You apparently missed the fact that the State Department originated the information. They determined it wasn't classified. Then they passed it on through the chain of intelligence and then the military classified it. While Hillary had it, it wasn't classified. Why is so hard for you?

>>15940
If the military classified it then it was classified information, failure to treat it as such is a gross negligence of secret information that is a direct violation of the espionage act, making her a criminal if you're really retarded enough to admit she had and passed on this information.

Also, destroying the evidence and covering it up is a separate crime that would also put her behind bars and disallow her from serving in public office.

Try and dig up a media matters source that pretends like she didn't try and hide and wipe the server.

>>15953
The military classified it ONLY AFTER it passed through the State Department, who is in charge of all the information pertaining to embassies and their staff regardless of the MOC of the personnel stationed there. When Hillary's state department had it the information was deemed safe. That's why the CIA is doing the routine investigation, to find out who might have seen the material before it was classified.

>>15954
>CIA
oops i meant FBI, damn alphabet agencies

>>15902
FACT: Benghazi was a forward CIA operating base and the Libyans rightfully blew it up. It's only called an embassy because an ambassador died there, which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't woke up that morning and said, hey, I think today I'll help the State Department provide diplomatic cover for black ops. Boo hoo, this is what happens, if you don't like it, go whine to the ONID and the president.

>>15997
I watched that Benghazi hearing, and when Hillary said that all the documents in the place were burned, she said it in such a definite manner that it kind of caught me off guard, like she was glad it happened or something.

Definitely some funny business out there, and if it was a CIA front I would expect they made damn sure nothing would ever come from any investigation as to the matter.

>>16004
Imagine what would happen if the Saudis put an "embassy" in Cleveland or whatever and bought off the local government. Wouldn't some Ohio rednecks go in there and blow it up? Cause that's what happened in Libya tbh.

>>16009
I would hope they would.

>>15808
It's really confusing how dems seem to hate authority and the idea of authority not getting punished like normal people, but then shit like this happens and suddenly it's different. She broke laws designed to keep our country safe and should pay her dues for being a shithead.

>>16059
>She broke laws
She didn't break any laws.

>>16060
Fuck off Hillary

ITT: Hillary shills

>>16059
>implying I'm a Democrat.
>implying there's a criminal investigation

>a detailed intelligence report by Sid Blumenthal, Hillary's close friend, confidant and factotum
/pol/ was right again

Honestly if nothing was done over the IRS wiping hard drives before a congressional investigation, nothing will be done here

>>16116
That story was even more sensationalized than this one is.

>>16119
Everything the Democrats do wrong is sensationalized apparently.

>>15830
Proofs pls.

>>15936
After watching this interaction, I can honestly say I'm not going to vote Hillary, I think we need someone else in charge. If Hillary's shills get paid to do this ill work for free for anyone else, except jeb. If I never say this interaction I would have trusted Hillary was a good candidate but you can see her shills are obviously as corrupt as she apparently is. Good on ya anon.

>>15813
Found the shillary staffer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

>>16164
That FoxNews story is also based on Joseph DiGenova's claims.

You didn't even try.

I can now say that I will not be voting for Hillary at all, especially with all the Hillary shills putting their heads in the sand and ignoring all of the facts mentioned in this thread. It's sad, really.

>>16171
>three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News
>Anonymous inside intelligence sources
>"But it's le boogeyman!"

You're gonna be out of a job soon, Shlomo.

>>16176
>muh anonymous sources
>muh total speculation
>muh apples and oranges comparison to what happened to Petraeus.
Fox News is the trope originator for the "Some say..." meme. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard Steve Doocy or Bill O'Reilly or Tucker Carlson or some other talking head on there pronounce Hillary as 'finished' and 'done' (same for Obama really) then I'd be a rich man. They've been consistantly wrong on whats' going to happen with this Benghazi thing the entire time, especially Catherine Herridge's reporting.

>>16179
There's no speculation anymore. The amount of, and nature of classification of her emails is public.

She's a criminal and no amount of useless pathetic shilling will change that fact. Unless you can challenge the FACTS, which you can't because you're an idiot, then go shill in some other toilet of a website

It's over.

>>16182
Do you know what speculation is? That's what the article is full of... "She could be charged with ___" but she won' be. "Unnamed sources say she did ___" but there isn't ever any proof. "Unnamed FBI officials say they're investigating Hillary for ___." bu then that gets contradicted in every FBI press conference.

In short, Hillary is not only not the target of any current FBI investigation, but there isn't any criminal investigation at all, just an administrative one.

Fox News is hoping if they throw enough shit at the wall that some of it will stick. http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/10/state-department-disproves-hugh-hewitts-claim-t/207884

>>16185
Media matter shill please go and stay go, nobody is voting for your criminal disaster of a candidate.

>>16188
Hey Trumpboy, people care about facts.

Not everyone is as gullible as you are that you blindly believe Fox News and the right wing media when they say Hillary is going to jail.

Wake me up when you have proof she did something wrong.

>>16193
We have the facts, and we're voting for Trumpo

>>16200
Your facts are based on discredited claims that your confirmation bias won't let you examine objectively. You have nothing, or else Hillary would be getting frog- marched into federal custody right now.

inb4 you claim conspiracy when nothing happens. Just like TravelGate and Whitewater and everything else the GOP has unsuccessfully tried to pin on her over the last 25 years.

>>16193
>CNN and the New York Times is the right wing media

People ITT have been provided all the proof in the world and braindead morons like you just disregard it because "muh judge, muh meanie meda, muh hillary", because you don't have a singe leg to stand on as Hillary moves a step closer to being either indicted by the DoJ, or having all her dirty laundry dumped to the media by the FBI if the DoJ fails to follow the law yet again.

It's over, and you might as well kill yourself now to save yourself the embarrassment of backing a publicly corrupt criminal.

>>16215
>People ITT have been provided all the proof in the world
Could you kindly point out where that is because I don't see anything but discredited bullshit.
> morons like you just disregard it because "muh judge, muh meanie meda, muh hillary",
So you don't have anything. All you have is what some former DoJ official thinks is going to happen, which then gets circlejerked about forever in the conservative press. Got it.
>because you don't have a singe leg to stand on as Hillary moves a step closer to being either indicted by the DoJ
Hopefully you will hold your breath until that happens. (protip: it isn't happening)
>or having all her dirty laundry dumped to the media by the FBI if the DoJ fails to follow the law yet again.
Making shit up doesn't work, genius. That's Sarah Palin tier.
>It's over, and you might as well kill yourself now to save yourself the embarrassment of backing a publicly corrupt criminal.
Not once did I ever say I was supporting HIllary. It's really telling that everyone who sticks up for what actually happened is automatically a Hilalry supporter in your book.

>>16225
Oh it was in the other thread you get BTFO in

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=3904

http://observer.com/2016/01/hillarys-emailgate-goes-nuclear/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us/politics/second-review-says-classified-information-was-in-hillary-clintons-email.html

http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/71316/justice-dept-may-probe-compromise-classified-info-hillary-clintons-email

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/08/latest-batch-clinton-emails-contains-66-more-classified-messages.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-email-state-department-release-214246

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/08/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-2016/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/7/state-department-misled-hillary-clinton-emails-inv/?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html

>>16200

If you're voting for any of these crooks you most certainly do NOT have all the facts.

>>16229
>if I declare victory then it means I'm right!
Jesus the mods need to copy the /pol/ sticky on this board too. I didn't get BTFO, I posted a media matters link that BTFO every single claim made in every single article there. Try harder.
See >>15902

>>16232
So go vote for Mickey Mouse and burn some incense

>>15748
But anon, shes also perfect for "big bad masquerading as being for the people", we just need someone to be the MC who beats her.

>>16235
>I posted a media matters link

Holy shit is this where all the reddit tier liberals fags fled to?

>>15913
>it's the duty of the state department to decide what is classifiable or not
holy shit you really have no idea what you're talking about.

>>16433
>holy shit
>>16398
>Holy shit
lel Holy shit! Prove me wrong, faggots.

>>16435
People have done nothing but prove you wrong over like 3-4 threads.

This entire threat is solely dedicated to proving that you lack the brain capacity of a sparrow.

>>16446
Oh really? How does posting speculative clickbait prove me wrong? I've cited every source I've used.