2016 Postmortem

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)

14. No they should be freely distributed by Manning and Snowden!!!

Reply to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #11)

Thu May 26, 2016, 11:45 AM

May 2016

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

52 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Josh Marshall: This was never more than some poor judgment overlayed by a big bureaucratic ... [View all] BootinUp May 2016 OP

Too bad there were so many federal regulations and felony laws broken. Tell it to the Judge, Josh leveymg May 2016 #1

For her opponents its a political loser, thats what he is saying and that you BootinUp May 2016 #2

The federal gov't has prosecuted two former CIA Directors for mishandling classified information leveymg May 2016 #3

What mishandling of classified info? I know you *think* that happened BootinUp May 2016 #5

Just GOOGLE David Petraeus, John Deutch and Sandy Berger leveymg May 2016 #6

We are talking about Hillary, not those losers. Stay on track here. nt BootinUp May 2016 #7

Are you so misinformed that you don't know the govt found 2200 classified materials,104 sent by HRC leveymg May 2016 #10

I am aware that her enemies have been spinning lies, yes. nt BootinUp May 2016 #12

That's what the State Department found. Is DOS her lying enemy, now? leveymg May 2016 #15

AFAIK there is no official report from the government BootinUp May 2016 #17

On that, you are wrong. Here's a statement cosigned by the IGs of DOS and the Intel Community (IC) leveymg May 2016 #20

This level of willful ignorance is going to work to completely blindside these poor saps. frylock May 2016 #22

When facts are pointed out they become silent and just move on to the next thread to spew the same. libtodeath May 2016 #28

This has to do wiith the over-classification question, whats classified when BootinUp May 2016 #34

Classified is classified, marked or unmarked. It's in para 1 of Hillary's security agreement. nt leveymg May 2016 #35

So she's special? because she's a woman? or what? snowy owl May 2016 #43

Because what they did is in a completely different BootinUp May 2016 #44

Where did you get your law degree? nt Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #4

Since when do you have to be a lawyer to know right from wrong? Octafish May 2016 #8

He has repeatedly been bringing his "informed legal opinion" on this matter to DU. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #9

You have no idea what I do for a living, and I'm entitled to privacy on this board. leveymg May 2016 #13

99% of legal analysis on the subject have disagreed with you. Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #18

You'd have to have read 100% of them to make that statement. You haven't. leveymg May 2016 #21

I don't believe it for a second. I call bullshit. COLGATE4 May 2016 #24

If you were really all that interested, you could confirm that. But I think you just want to harrass leveymg May 2016 #27

The number you have reached, zero zero zero point zero zero zero zero... Octafish May 2016 #36

OK. Give me some information to confirm the representations you are making COLGATE4 May 2016 #37

Crickets. COLGATE4 May 2016 #40

How about names of the books you claim to have authored or co-authored? COLGATE4 May 2016 #42

How about the names of my children and their telephone numbers? leveymg May 2016 #50

Let's make it easy. You said COLGATE4 May 2016 #52

How about the name(s) of the COLGATE4 May 2016 #39

Still nothing but crickets. Embarrassed to state on the record the names of COLGATE4 May 2016 #41

Gee. Your emoticon really does trump the facts. Octafish May 2016 #19

From the 'Close Cover before Striking School of Law' nt COLGATE4 May 2016 #23

None of the cyber security analysts I work with have law degrees, but they all Fawke Em May 2016 #31

Right. Because state secrets should be preserved by going into Clinton's bathroom... lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #11

No they should be freely distributed by Manning and Snowden!!! JoePhilly May 2016 #14

At this point, I'd prefer to vote for Snowden. lumberjack_jeff May 2016 #16

"Poor judgement" is certainly not a presidential quality. n/t Avalux May 2016 #25

This is an apt summation Tarc May 2016 #26

KNR Thank you! Lucinda May 2016 #29

He's wrong. Fawke Em May 2016 #30

"Partisan game playing" for damn sure. nt oasis May 2016 #32

My goodness. Josh does not understand FOIA nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author TM99 May 2016 #51

AKA: haters gonna hate Dem2 May 2016 #38

You enjoyed that, didn't you? And we are the haters...? snowy owl May 2016 #46

Some of these internet superstars are now msm. Remember that. He hobnobs... snowy owl May 2016 #45

It would be hilarious to see your approved list BootinUp May 2016 #47

My "approved" list is just many, many different sources. snowy owl May 2016 #48

To each his/her own. I read quite a range of material myself. nt BootinUp May 2016 #49