Alright… This is a link that you gave me with evidence – directly from wiki leaks, which we both agree is a reliable source.


I went through these e-mails one by one. By the time I got the sixth one I concluded that while wiki leaks is still reliable, the site you sent me was lying or misrepresenting the wiki leaks e-mails. All of the e-mails are properly referenced, and they are there. I corrected the mistakes, and listed the corrections for you.

You have not in any way indicated that I am wrong. You have not, to the best of my knowledge, even verified what I have said. You have simply moved on to other arguments – such as O’Keefe – which also is demonstrably false. I have provided evidence in that case to. Rather than listen to the evidence or suggest I am wrong, you have again moved on to other things. You asked me again to look at wiki leaks, but have not told me what I’m looking for. You have simply suggested I’m not looking at the evidence.

Is what I have said above a fair assessment of our conversation thus far?

This is the reply that I wrote to you about the evidence above. Please explain to me why I am wrong. All of this is citing your sources, and wiki leaks exclusively.

N. Lamar Soutter
K… Some of this seems quite damning. Some of it is new to me. Much of it isn’t. A lot of this isn’t wiki-leaks, but links to other articles or sources—(like a New York Post article—NYP not terribly reliable, and this story was discredited, easy to source). Most of this not what it looks like, some… May be quite serious. I only did the first 10, this takes a lot of time.

1) Utterly damning. I had heard rumors, no proof. This is shocking and saddening. Still, speaks to POTUS, not HRC. If Clinton camp tried to cover for POTUS, that’s not shocking, it’s not illegal, and no evidence HRC herself involved. None the less, mind a little blown.

2) We ALL say different things to different audiances. I know you speak to me differently than your family. Hawthorn effect states we all do this. Shouldn’t admit it (sociopath, she sees nothing wrong saying it). Maybe she was pandering, maybe not. Now open trade is as close to an absolute good as you can get (you’ll challenge me, I’ll explain later) in an economic system. Open borders-in an economic sense is good. In a physical sense—BAD FUCKING IDEA. I’d need to see the actual remarks, not these clips, but at best this doesn’t look very good. I don’t have the context, but yeah, this would make me nervious.

3)This neglects to mention both those countries are our alies. CENTCOM is in Qatar for crying out loud. Everybody takes money from them. I have a long bit on this, but the all but 1 of the 9/11 hijackers were Sauds. The government is a dictatorship, we support and keep it in power (for OPEC veto help and low oil prices), and the civilians HATE OUR GUTS for it (and when I point out it’s a bad Idea, I get called part of the “Blame America first” crowd). They are our alies, the Busshes took GOBS of money from them… Everybody always has. VERY BAD and morraly corrupt thing to do, but they all do it (admittedly, not Trump), and they’re our allies.

4) Everybody does. Everybody. Hawthorn effect. But this was phenomenally stupid thing to say. Again, sociopath, she didn’t see that. Nuts to say this outloud, but I’ll bet you have public and private opinions. If I were a Politian, I’d have them practiced. Tempest in a teapot. Romney said a similar thing last cycle. That 97% comment was to a CLOSED audience. Think he’d have said that in public? Really? He was catering to the audience.

5) Outright lie. Check the headers. The Bird Doging comment is true, Nixon coined the phrase. But the “draw them out and punch you” line—look at who sent the email to who? It’s from http://Movon.org , not the Clinton camp. Further, I know the guy who did the video well, he re-edits them to make them sound completely different. He took down ACORN and PP with videos which were fake when you saw the ENTIRE thing. Had PP saying that they sold aborted fetus parts, and in the original they said they’d never do it, it’s illegal, he cut that out. The guy’s a liar. The Daily caller piece SAYS they have proof, they don’t show it. If they do, that’s pretty daming. I’d like to see it.

6) Whopper lie. 1)The email is not from the Clinton camp but TO the Clinton camp—take a look. I mean this is staggering, whoever wrote this page outright lies here, and you can see it with a quick look. This email was FROM a political think tank ADVISING Clinton’s campaign. This page says the Clinton campaign “admitted it in this email”… IT’S NOT FROM THE CLINTON CAMP. OMG! 2) In context, he’s saying that this is a bad thing, you need to wake people up. He says the OPISITE of what this page claims he’s saying once you read it in context.

Shocking how much the author of this webpage lies.

I’m ending it here. I don’t continue after something like that. I hope you can see it from my perspective… If he’s willing to say this was the Clinton campaign “admitting”, and if he reads the exact opposite of the intent….

I tried, really, I tried to look at this evidence. But please, you’ve got to give me that after #6…. OMG. It’s a lie and the proof is the email they cite right there.

This is the problem. If you’ve got a good case, take the few things you’ve got and run with it. There’s 100 emails here? Are they all this bad? If you’ve got a good case, why is he making stuff up?

Tell me I’m wrong. Tell me #6 not an absolute lie (two, actually).

So…Please tell me where I have either ignored your evidence, improperly represented it, or not accounted for it using sources you and I both agreed were valid.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments