It took a lot more effort to put together that extensive report than it did for you to make that statement. But your statement is on the internet too, so...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I would like to thank the folks who voted to 'Leave' the EU
- Thread starter wildchild
- Start date
It took a lot more effort to put together that extensive report than it did for you to make that statement. But your statement is on the internet too, so...
yes but the big difference is that I initially almost always back up my points with facts and figures.
It took a lot more effort to put together that extensive report than it did for you to make that statement. But your statement is on the internet too, so...
yes but the big difference is that I initially ALWAYS back up my points with facts and figures.
Which facts or figures in this report (that video) would you say aren't backed up properly enough?
And are you saying something has to be available as a hardcover book from Amazon.com to have credibility?
No, it should be established fact, proven! A credible body should have weighted in rather than some opportunistic politicians from the opposing camp.
Can I ask you a serious question? Who has proven really how secure/insecure her server setup was? I mean where is the proof of all the facts? Which router did she use? Behind which firewall was the server? Was any encryption in play? In which network was the server situated. Can you answer those questions? Are they fully answered and the answers are supported by credible sources?
Can I ask you a serious question? Who has proven really how secure/insecure her server setup was? I mean where is the proof of all the facts? Which router did she use? Behind which firewall was the server? Was any encryption in play? In which network was the server situated. Can you answer those questions? Are they fully answered and the answers are supported by credible sources?
Which facts or figures in this report (that video) would you say aren't backed up properly enough? Most we can go with is in the FBI report. Hardly any more detailed information is available in public domain unless I have missed it. Please point all of us to it.
And are you saying something has to be available as a hardcover book from Amazon.com to have credibility?
No, it should be established fact, proven! A credible body should have weighted in rather than some opportunistic politicians from the opposing camp.
Can I ask you a serious question? Who has proven really how secure/insecure her server setup was? I mean where is the proof of all the facts? Which router did she use? Behind which firewall was the server? Was any encryption in play? In which network was the server situated. Can you answer those questions? Are they fully answered and the answers are supported by credible sources?
If i recall, the hacker's name is Guccifer 2.0 who proved how unsecure it was. He also claims to have hacked the DNC. But i guess it won't be proven until Julian Assange releases Hillary's emails that he got from Guccifer 2.0, who has described, in part, how he broke in.
But now, what is a proven fact is that Hillary manages to mire herself in consecutive, long, drawn out, expensive investigations regarding her attitude toward the law, that is, scenarios arising from her attitude about the law, and her credibility in those cases. She blows them off as partisan, as you do. For example, Travelgate was about an attitude about the law, laws about employment, laws about liable, laws about transparency, laws about cronyism. From there we get to the next scandal, leading to the next. All very expensive. That we know as fact. Don't need more proof of that, but partisans will need more proof regarding the particulars of each scheming scenario.
So where is Guccifer's proof? It's the internet, so it's true?
If i recall, the hacker's name is Guccifer 2.0 who proved how unsecure it was. He also claims to have hacked the DNC. But i guess it won't be proven until Julian Assange releases Hillary's emails that he got from Guccifer 2.0, who has described, in part, how he broke in.
But now, what is a proven fact is that Hillary manages to mire herself in consecutive, long, drawn out, expensive investigations regarding her attitude toward the law, that is, scenarios arising from her attitude about the law, and her credibility in those cases. She blows them off as partisan, as you do. For example, Travelgate was about an attitude about the law, laws about employment, laws about liable, laws about transparency, laws about cronyism. From there we get to the next scandal, leading to the next. All very expensive. That we know as fact. Don't need more proof of that, but partisans will need more proof regarding the particulars of each scheming scenario.
So where is Guccifer's proof? It's the internet, so it's true?
Like i said, it's not proof till Assange releases the hacked emails he got from Guccifer. But Guccifer's claims were evident enough that the FBI flew him to the United States to talk to him.
So, one way to look at this is that Comey DID "indict" H. Clinton as much as he could. What is a recommendation? Nothing. Who indicts? A GRAND JURY, and it is the DOJ who will decide whether the evidence the FBI gathered should be heard by a grand jury. The DOJ was/is going to decide with or without a recommendation. It may choose to hide behind the Comey recommendation to NOT prosecute. But had Comey recommended it, the DOJ could have found a reason to disregard the recommendation. Comey had little to gain from recommending. By spelling out the facts, he did as much as he could do to prosecute, and/or see to it that others in the chain of command would prosecute, starting with the voters in November.
and obviously it all turned out to be completely bogus. Thanks for at least admitting.
Like i said, it's not proof till Assange releases the hacked emails he got from Guccifer. But Guccifer's claims were evident enough that the FBI flew him to the United States to talk to him.
and obviously it all turned out to be completely bogus. Thanks for at least admitting.
Oh really? You said you like to back what you say up. Back that up.