Cotton: Clinton discussed executed Iranian scientist on email

[jmotivator]

Yup. Hillary is an intelligent, experienced, and yes, trustworthy candidate, but don't confuse her haters with those truths.

 

[Paperview]

Yes, I did. How many people do you think turned up in the Pakistani Embassy demanding a flight to Tehran in July 2010?

By the CNN article posted to Hillary in the Sept. email, as late as July the Iranian's were trying to secure the return of their "kidnapped" citizen in return for US hostages.

The Iranians, familiar with the facts surrounding Amiri's return in July 2010 would easily be able to distinguish who was being discussed in those emails.

For example: When State officals discuss "our friend" going to his country's "interest section" in a foreign embassy (hint, you only do that when your country doesn't have its own embassy in Washington DC.. like Iran) to facilitate departure from the US to his homeland, and Iran knows that Amiri had appeared in Pakistan's "Iranian Interests" section of the Pakistani Embassy seeking repatriation to Iran, it doesn't take a genius to decode that email.

In fact, the list of countries without an Embassy: Bhutan, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Taiwan.

So "our friend" could have only originated in one of those 5 countries, so it wouldn't be difficult for any person with half a brain to deduce who that email was discussing given that it explicitly describes the conditions of Amiri's repatriation.

By the way, here in the classified regions of the US Government you are specifically instructed not to "talk around" classified information the way Hillary and her staff were doing specifically because any series of seemingly safe information can be used by foreign intelligence to piece together classified information, as I have already shown.

^ Unbelievably ridiculous.

 

[Born Free]

What is it about Cons that have no sense of equivalence? The concern is about Trump being reckless and actually using a nuke vs someone being reckless with an email server.

The emails in question have been scoured. There were questionable items going through her system, but nothing that is even remotely comparable to the idea of using nuclear weapons. There may be some judgement issues about Hillary, but they are very minor in comparison to a ignorant, arrogant, thinned skinned narcissist with zero government an zero international diplomatic experience.

You accept allowing top secret e-mails fly over the place by Hillary and you then come off the handle and accuse Trump of being loose with nuclear weapons. The first statement is true, she is a loose cannon and short circuits, the second about Trump is false and nothing but a scare tactic.

 

[jmotivator]

^ Unbelievably ridiculous.

^ Predictably evasive

 

[Born Free]

Yup. Hillary is an intelligent, experienced, and yes, trustworthy candidate, but don't confuse her haters with those truths.

Don't tell me you really believe that?????

 

[Paperview]

^ Predictably evasive

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tist-email-post1066179089.html#post1066179089

 

[Paperview]

Timelines. They con-fuse cons.

 

[trouble13]

Part of the problem is that the information was cassified AS "classified" after the fact. Like what happened with Colin Powell and Condy, to name but two.

Ueah im a bit murky on all of that. I have heard some of it was classofied but those parts were redacted so it could go on an unsecured server. I dont know rhe extent of the risk that she took and none of will ever know since its protected information.

However it does look pretty apparent that she knowingly avoided archiving offical corespondents by using her personal server and than later attempting to delete them. She also deliberately lied to the public about the content and her being fully cooperative with the investigation.

Im not a legal scholar but it seems like there should be some sort of offical consequence associated with what she did. Its pretty hard to argue that deystroying data and lying about it was not intentional nor criminal.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[upsideguy]

You accept allowing top secret e-mails fly over the place by Hillary and you then come off the handle and accuse Trump of being loose with nuclear weapons. The first statement is true, she is a loose cannon and short circuits, the second about Trump is false and nothing but a scare tactic.

...and you KNOW this to be "false" how? You simply believe it to be false. No one here is interested in your beliefs.

What makes you convinced that trump would use a nuke as anything but a last resort?

I get that people don't like the guy but this hyperbolic rhetotic is way over the top. Its nothing more than an anti trump scare tactic. There is about as much chance of him launching a nuclear attack as there is that obama would launch one.

This was the same nonsense they said about Reagan.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

First, Trump is no Reagan. Not even close. Reagan was an honorable, even tempered, humble and thoughtful man who surrounded himself with capable advisors. None of those attributes fit Trump.

Second, you are asking the wrong question.... its not whether or not I am convinced that he might; it just he has done nothing to assure us (and the rest of the world) he won't.

Donald Trump won't rule out using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State - Washington Times
What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button? - POLITICO Magazine
www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
Donald Trump refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons against Europe | US elections | News | The Independent

He had his chance to explain how a nuclear arsenal fits into defense. The problem is that he doesn't understand it as he is far to ignorant of world affairs to understand it. That by itself might not be such an issue if he actually possessed the aforementioned attributes of temperament.

I am not going to worry too much about it, though, as there are just not enough angry, uneducated white men to get him elected.

 

[Mycroft]

...and you KNOW this to be "false" how? You simply believe it to be false. No one here is interested in your beliefs.




First, Trump is no Reagan. Not even close. Reagan was an honorable, even tempered, humble and thoughtful man who surrounded himself with capable advisors. None of those attributes fit Trump.

Second, you are asking the wrong question.... its not whether or not I am convinced that he might; it just he has done nothing to assure us (and the rest of the world) he won't.

Donald Trump won't rule out using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State - Washington Times
What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button? - POLITICO Magazine
www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
Donald Trump refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons against Europe | US elections | News | The Independent

He had his chance to explain how a nuclear arsenal fits into defense. The problem is that he doesn't understand it as he is far to ignorant of world affairs to understand it. That by itself might not be such an issue if he actually possessed the aforementioned attributes of temperament.

I am not going to worry too much about it, though, as there are just not enough angry, uneducated white men to get him elected.

Obama hasn't ever ruled out using nukes...even though it's common knowledge he would never have the courage to use them if they were necessary.

Shouldn't you be more worried about our country while Obama is the President?

I am.

 

[trouble13]

First, Trump is no Reagan. Not even close. Reagan was an honorable, even tempered, humble and thoughtful man who surrounded himself with capable advisors. None of those attributes fit Trump.

I did not compare Trump to Reagan. I compared the political attacks similarity.

Second, you are asking the wrong question.... its not whether or not I am convinced that he might; it just he has done nothing to assure us (and the rest of the world) he won't.

Donald Trump won't rule out using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State - Washington Times
What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button? - POLITICO Magazine
www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-nukes-msnbcs-joe-scarborough-reports.html
Donald Trump refuses to rule out using nuclear weapons against Europe | US elections | News | The Independent

Thats an unrealistic standard your trying to hold him to. Unless he unequivically says he wont your all in on assuming that he will.

He had his chance to explain how a nuclear arsenal fits into defense. The problem is that he doesn't understand it as he is far to ignorant of world affairs to understand it. That by itself might not be such an issue if he actually possessed the aforementioned attributes of temperament.

Cant say im all that unsympathetic to his temperment considering these type of ridicilous attacks on him.

I am not going to worry too much about it, though, as there are just not enough angry, uneducated white men to get him elected.

Does this mean your voting for Trump because it sounds like you just described yourself.

Whats your opinion of clinton supporters are they all morally bankruptm




Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[NonoBadDog]

Yup. Hillary is an intelligent, experienced, and yes, trustworthy candidate, but don't confuse her haters with those truths.

WTF, really?

 

[Phys251]

Hahahaha! !! So Hillary's trustworthiness is one of those universal axiomatic truths.

Hillary receives 4 pinocchios
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/category/4-pinocchios/

So much for reality having a Liberal bias.

You know, I've always said that the difference between Conservatives and Liberals is Conservatives use truth to shape their ideology

Liberals use their ideology to shape the truth and calling Hillary trustworthy is a great example of just that

Don't tell me you really believe that?????

WTF, really?

Don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Don't let the facts get in your way.

I don't give any credence to Politifact. There are on par with Media Matters. Politifact is owned by the Tampa Bay times, left leaning paper.

Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

As the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto has consistently reported, the fact checking business often – too often for anyone's good – turns on matters of opinion rather than matters of "fact." One recent example that drives the point home is the Washington Post's recent fact check that gave President Barack Obama "four Pinocchios" for asserting that he had, in fact, called what happened in Benghazi an act of "terrorism."

According to the Post's Glenn Kessler, Obama did in fact refer to it the next day in a Rose Garden address as an "act of terror," but did not call it "terrorism." Is this a distinction without a difference? Hardly, at least as far as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney might be concerned. It will be a long time before anyone forgets how the second presidential debate turned into a tag team match with Obama and CNN's Candy Crowley both explaining to the mystified Republican that Romney was, in fact, wrong when he accused the president of not having called the Benghazi attack a terrorist incident.

Study Finds Fact Checkers Biased Against Republicans | US News Opinion
Study: Media Fact-Checker Says Republicans Lie More | The Center for Media and Public Affairs

EPIC FAIL - It’s PolitiFact that deserves the “Pants on Fire” for incomplete reporting, because Romney was just repeating a point Navy leaders themselves have made numerous times over the past year. Here’s Mabus, speaking last April at the Navy League’s annual meeting: “One of our main areas of focus has to be the size of our fleet. The CNO has repeatedly said, and I repeatedly have strongly supported him, that the minimal number of ships we should have is 313. We have 288 today in the battle fleet: the lowest number since 1916, which – during that time, the intervening years, our responsibilities have grown somewhat. But if Congress funds the shipbuilding program that we have laid out, we will reach a fleet of 325 ships in the early 2020s.”

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO
PolitiFact's 'Epic Fail' | The Weekly Standard

Don't let the facts get in your way.

 

[Phys251]

I don't give any credence to Politifact. There are on par with Media Matters. Politifact is owned by the Tampa Bay times, left leaning paper.

And here come the "I don't like the source, so the source is wrong" retorts, accompanied by spammed articles. Please proceed.

 

[Paperview]

I don't give any credence to Politifact. There are on par with Media Matters. Politifact is owned by the Tampa Bay times, left leaning paper.



Study Finds Fact Checkers Biased Against Republicans | US News Opinion
Study: Media Fact-Checker Says Republicans Lie More | The Center for Media and Public Affairs

PolitiFact's art of interpretation - POLITICO
PolitiFact's 'Epic Fail' | The Weekly Standard

Don't let the facts get in your way.

Oh gee. A conservative gopper writing an editorial takes issue with the factcheckers. What a revelation.

"Roff is also the former Political Director of GOPAC, the political committee once headed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In that venue, Mr. Roff was a frequent commentator on politics and culture for MSNBC and the Fox News Channel."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Peter_Roff

 

[Paperview]

And here come the "I don't like the source, so the source is wrong" retorts, accompanied by spammed articles. Please proceed.

what was the Romney lie last time around....we won't let our campaign be burned by factcheckers...

or some such.

They hate people who look at empirical evidence-- because dammit: we create our own reality.

Stop mucking up alternate universe with your facks. Damn hippies.

 

[Phys251]

what was the Romney lie last time around....we won't let our campaign be burned by factcheckers...

or some such.

They hate people who look at empirical evidence-- because dammit: we create our own reality.

Stop mucking up alternate universe with your facks. Damn hippies.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Oh gee. A conservative gopper writing an editorial takes issue with the factcheckers. What a revelation.

"Roff is also the former Political Director of GOPAC, the political committee once headed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In that venue, Mr. Roff was a frequent commentator on politics and culture for MSNBC and the Fox News Channel."

Peter Roff - SourceWatch

Dylan Byers is a writer for Politico.

 

[NonoBadDog]

At least you admit it.

 

[Paperview]

Dylan Byers is a writer for Politico.

Lol.

Get back in your bubble. It's safer there.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Lol.

Get back in your bubble. It's safer there.

Like I thought, nothing.

 

[Top Cat]

This is not surprising, since she has learned a lot from Obama.

He also ****ed up the life of a guy who helped him get bin Laden.

Oh for ****'a sake. You haters crack me up.

 

[Phys251]

At least you admit it.

Silly Nono. Trix are for Republicans.

 

[jmotivator]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...tist-email-post1066179089.html#post1066179089

Quod erat demonstrandum