Trumps speech hacked and released.

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
LOL. The Russians hack the Democrat's computers and these two Democratic shills don't have the balls to tell us about it.
Yep, hacking happens, to the DNC, Sony, the CIA director, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush among others. And keeping an entire network secure is really hard. But keeping a single critical document secure for just a few hours? That's trivial, but the best people working for Trump couldn't manage it.


Oh yeah leaking a speech a couple of hours before it's given just as bad being extremely careless in handling very sensitive, highly classified information...
Yeah, like discussions of Edward Snowden, retroactively labeled classified, and available to anyone with an internet connection. You know much of the information available from Wikileaks is still considered classified, and it was linked to in this thread. OMG, that means that LVA is helping to expose classified information on its private server. Not only that, it's on a private server. And did I mention that LVA has a PRIVATE SERVER?

Which reminds me. Does the LVA Members Rewards book have any 2-For-1's on nothingburgers?

(And the only reason this is being discussed is that the Benghazi investigation embarrassment flamed out so badly.)


Oh yeah...It's a nothingburger when 56% of Americans think Hillary should have been indicted and 57% said her behavior made them worried about how she would handle her responsibilities as president if elected...
And I'm sure at one time a lot of Americans thought that Benghazi was really a thing. And Whitewater for that matter. At this point I bet a huge number of Americans think there is something wrong with having a "private server." When the number one cable news network repeats something 24/7, it does have an effect.

How long were Republicans screeching about Benghazi, until it the investigation became an embarrassment to many of them? Let's just call the private server thing "Benghazi II."
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The speech was provided to news outlets yesterday afternoon; so any "leaks" likely came from the liberal media
Who told you that? Was it speciallifeentertainment.com?

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroyII
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
LOL. The Russians hack the Democrat's computers and these two Democratic shills don't have the balls to tell us about it.
Yep, hacking happens, to the DNC, Sony, the CIA director, Sarah Palin, and George W. Bush among others. And keeping an entire network secure is really hard. But keeping a single critical document secure for just a few hours? That's trivial, but the best people working for Trump couldn't manage it.


Oh yeah leaking a speech a couple of hours before it's given just as bad being extremely careless in handling very sensitive, highly classified information...
Yeah, like discussions of Edward Snowden, retroactively labeled classified, and available to anyone with an internet connection. You know much of the information available from Wikileaks is still considered classified, and it was linked to in this thread. OMG, that means that LVA is helping to expose classified information on its private server. Not only that, it's on a private server. And did I mention that LVA has a PRIVATE SERVER?

Which reminds me. Does the LVA Members Rewards book have any 2-For-1's on nothingburgers?

(And the only reason this is being discussed is that the Benghazi investigation embarrassment flamed out so badly.)


Oh yeah...It's a nothingburger when 56% of Americans think Hillary should have been indicted and 57% said her behavior made them worried about how she would handle her responsibilities as president if elected...
And I'm sure at one time a lot of Americans thought that Benghazi was really a thing. And Whitewater for that matter. At this point I bet a huge number of Americans think there is something wrong with having a "private server." When the number one cable news network repeats something 24/7, it does have an effect.

How long were Republicans screeching about Benghazi, until it the investigation became an embarrassment to many of them? Let's just call the private server thing "Benghazi II."

No. Although I can understand why you'd like sluff it off. Let's just call it 'Careless Hillary's E-Mail scandal'. The big difference between Benghazi and Careless Hillary's E-mail Scandal is FBI Director Comey's scathing conclusions.

You can't whitewash it. You can't lessen it. You can't make it go away. It's resonating. She was Careless with very sensitive, highly classified information....for years....she should have known better....and she was obligated to protect it.....and there were no consequences for her carelessness. If you don't think it's resonating, take a look at The Moment Focus Groups Loved the most from The Donalds Speech. 99% Republican Approval and 81% Democratic Approval. Ever since the FBI Report was released, Hillary's numbers have been tanking. I doubt that alone will sink her, but there's no question (unlike Benghazi) it's seriously injured her candidacy.

Oh....And let's not forget Trump's speech was leaked....no one will be talking about that tomorrow....except maybe a few partisan hacks.

Let's review....

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

2. "Should have known"
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

3. "Still obligated to protect it"
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

4. "Sophisticated adversaries"
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The speech was provided to news outlets yesterday afternoon; so any "leaks" likely came from the liberal media
Who told you that? Was it speciallifeentertainment.com?


How about the Washington Post? Link

Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The speech was provided to news outlets yesterday afternoon; so any "leaks" likely came from the liberal media
Who told you that? Was it speciallifeentertainment.com?


How about the Washington Post? Link


Again your foolishness gets easily slapped down. You may want to lose that kind of argument out of your bag of cliches.
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The speech was provided to news outlets yesterday afternoon; so any "leaks" likely came from the liberal media
Who told you that? Was it speciallifeentertainment.com?


How about the Washington Post? Link


Again your foolishness gets easily slapped down. You may want to lose that kind of argument out of your bag of cliches.
Dear Incredibly Dishonest Person:

The two stories don't match. The HEADLINE of the first one, from that paean of journalism, Special Life Entertainment, said 23,000 emails were marked "confidential" or even "classified. But the ENTIRE Washington Post article doesn't even include either word.

Why don't you go back to explaining how when Michelle Obama quoted her husband with attribution, she was committing plagiarism. This I gotta hear.
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The speech was provided to news outlets yesterday afternoon; so any "leaks" likely came from the liberal media
Who told you that? Was it speciallifeentertainment.com?


How about the Washington Post? Link


Again your foolishness gets easily slapped down. You may want to lose that kind of argument out of your bag of cliches.
Dear Incredibly Dishonest Person:

The two stories don't match. The HEADLINE of the first one, from that paean of journalism, Special Life Entertainment, said 23,000 emails were marked "confidential." But the ENTIRE Washington Post article doesn't even include the word "confidential."

Why don't you go back to explaining how when Michelle Obama quoted her husband with attribution, she was committing plagiarism. This I gotta hear.


Dear Mr. Disingenuous Political Whore. I couldn't give a crap if Michelle Obama thought she was quoting her husband or not, bottom line she plagiarized and you are either too disingenuous to admit it or too stupid.

You originally acted like the DNC wasn't hacked because of the news source and now you change the particulars and do admit it happened. Thanks for admitting that in your half assed explanation.
WikiLeaks ? @wikileaks
FBI head testified he wasn't sure that Clinton was familiar with CONFIDENTIAL marks. But she was intimately familar: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/751153144856514560 …
1:54 PM - 7 Jul 2016
1,674 1,674 Retweets 1,218 1,218 likes
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The speech was provided to news outlets yesterday afternoon; so any "leaks" likely came from the liberal media
Who told you that? Was it speciallifeentertainment.com?


How about the Washington Post? Link


Again your foolishness gets easily slapped down. You may want to lose that kind of argument out of your bag of cliches.
Dear Incredibly Dishonest Person:

The two stories don't match. The HEADLINE of the first one, from that paean of journalism, Special Life Entertainment, said 23,000 emails were marked "confidential." But the ENTIRE Washington Post article doesn't even include the word "confidential."

Why don't you go back to explaining how when Michelle Obama quoted her husband with attribution, she was committing plagiarism. This I gotta hear.
...You originally acted like the DNC wasn't hacked because of the news source and now you change the particulars and do admit it happened. Thanks for admitting that in your half assed explanation.
Dude, everyone knows that the DNC network was hacked, and not that it was necessary, you could have linked to a credible source. Instead you chose speciallifeentertainment.com which then proceeded to lie about it in the headline. That's not "changing the particulars," that's pandering to really dishonest people. Like you.
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: Roulette Man
Quote

Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2
The speech was provided to news outlets yesterday afternoon; so any "leaks" likely came from the liberal media
Who told you that? Was it speciallifeentertainment.com?


How about the Washington Post? Link


Again your foolishness gets easily slapped down. You may want to lose that kind of argument out of your bag of cliches.
Dear Incredibly Dishonest Person:

The two stories don't match. The HEADLINE of the first one, from that paean of journalism, Special Life Entertainment, said 23,000 emails were marked "confidential." But the ENTIRE Washington Post article doesn't even include the word "confidential."

Why don't you go back to explaining how when Michelle Obama quoted her husband with attribution, she was committing plagiarism. This I gotta hear.


Dear Mr. Disingenuous Political Whore. I couldn't give a crap if Michelle Obama thought she was quoting her husband or not, bottom line she plagiarized and you are either too disingenuous to admit it or too stupid...
Please, please, PLEASE quote the line(s) that Michelle Obama supposedly plagiarized. I want everyone to see.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now