Comey Defends Decision Not To Recommend Indictment of Hillary

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a true lib-retard, flighty, you and your lib-retard sources conveniently see and extract what you want to see despite what Powell really said.

Conason is not a reliable source. Do you have any else to support what he said. You may be right but it takes more than a hacks word.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Conason is not a reliable source. Do you have any else to support what he said. You may be right but it takes more than a hacks word.

You're a stupid lib-retard, MT Jockstrap. Flighty cited a Yahoo article as the source, MT Jockstrap. The Yahoo article cited a CNBC article as the source, MT Jockstrap. CNBC article cited the New York Times as the source, MT Jockstrap. The New York Times cited journalist Joe Conason with the quote cited above as the source, MT Jockstrap: a source that pre-dates hildebeest's interview with the FBI, MT Jockstrap, and the New York Time's source conveniently taken out of context with the omission of key words by CNBC, Yahoo and flighty, MT Jockstrap. BTW, MT Jockstrap, it's hildebeest who cannot be trusted to be a reliable source.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a stupid lib-retard, MT Jockstrap. Flighty cited a Yahoo article as the source, MT Jockstrap. The Yahoo article cited a CNBC article as the source, MT Jockstrap. CNBC article cited the New York Times as the source, MT Jockstrap. The New York Times cited journalist Joe Conason with the quote cited above as the source, MT Jockstrap: a source that pre-dates hildebeest's interview with the FBI, MT Jockstrap, and the New York Time's source conveniently taken out of context with the omission of key words by CNBC, Yahoo and flighty, MT Jockstrap. BTW, MT Jockstrap, it's hildebeest who cannot be trusted to be a reliable source.

So I am guessing you do not have any other source. Why didn't you just say so then. I was not being a smart ass I thought you may actually be right for once. I was wrong you are just full rambling bullshit. If I am wrong show me something other than a known liars memoir.

P.S. Will you cocksuckers get together and figure out what my pet name is. It seems to change every 5 minutes. Fickle fuckers

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

So I am guessing you do not have any other source. Why didn't you just say so then. I was not being a smart ass I thought you may actually be right for once. I was wrong you are just full rambling bullshit. If I am wrong show me something other than a known liars memoir.

P.S. Will you cocksuckers get together and figure out what my pet name is. It seems to change every 5 minutes. Fickle fuckers

Flighty, Yahoo, and CNBC did not accurately report what the New York Times reported, MT Jockstrap; hence, they begat a lie. Because Yahoo and CNBC mendaciously misquoted what the New York Times reported about what Powell actually said, flighty runs in here and posts their lie using the mendacious, lame-stream Yahoo article as his source, MT Jockstrap. That you cannot follow how the lame-stream media distorted and misreported what Powell actually said only serves to underscore your stupidity, MT Jockstrap.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Conason is not a reliable source.... it takes more than a hacks (sic) word.... show me something other than a known liars (sic) memoir.

Did you even read the NYT story, Pockass? What do you know about Conason that would make him a hack and a liar?

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Flighty, Yahoo, and CNBC did not accurately report what the New York Times reported, MT Jockstrap; hence, they begat a lie. Because Yahoo and CNBC mendaciously misquoted what the New York Times reported about what Powell actually said, flighty runs in here and posts their lie using the mendacious, lame-stream Yahoo article as his source, MT Jockstrap. That you cannot follow how the lame-stream media distorted and misreported what Powell actually said only serves to underscore your stupidity, MT Jockstrap.

What is it that you do not understand. By my mentioning Conason by name even a fucking moron should know that I know what your blabbing about. So do you have another source or not mother fucker. I gave you a chance to confirm your assertion but you keep babbling on and on. WTF!

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Did you even read the NYT story, Pockass? What do you know about Conason that would make him a hack and a liar?

My god the pocks are spreading must be something I caught from your wife. Shut up Cuckylad.

If you read my post to him you would know I did, and I simply asked if he had another source. Guess not. He had to call you in to help out. You are a good little helper too.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

What is it that you do not understand. By my mentioning Conason by name even a fucking moron should know that I know what your blabbing about. So do you have another source or not mother fucker. I gave you a chance to confirm your assertion but you keep babbling on and on. WTF!

You're a moron, MT Jockstrap. You're a Mutha Fuckin' moron! The New York Times is the original article where this whole fuckin' story starts, MT Jockstrap. Conason is the New York Times' original source: he pre-dates hildebeest's FBI interview, MT Jockstrap. Flighty, Yahoo, and CNBC are misquoting -- lying -- about what the New York Times says Powell said, MT Jockstrap. There is a hyperlink in flighty's post that takes the reader to the Yahoo article, MT Jockstrap. There is a hyperlink in the Yahoo article that takes the reader to the CNBC article, MT Jockstrap. There is a hyperlink in the CNBC article that takes the reader to the New York Times article, MT Jockstrap. Do you not understand how Flighty, Yahoo, and CNBC are misquoting -- lying -- about what the New York Times says Powell said, MT Jockstrap? Are you unable -- not smart enough -- to trace the source of the story through Flighty's post to Yahoo; then to CNBC to the New York Times to see that they are misquoting -- lying -- about what the New York Times says Powell said, MT Jockstrap?

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a moron, MT Jockstrap. You're a Mutha Fuckin' moron! The New York Times is the original article where this whole fuckin' story starts, MT Jockstrap. Conason is the New York Times' original source: he pre-dates hildebeest's FBI interview, MT Jockstrap. Flighty, Yahoo, and CNBC are misquoting -- lying -- about what the New York Times says Powell said, MT Jockstrap. There is a hyperlink in flighty's post that takes the reader to the Yahoo article, MT Jockstrap. There is a hyperlink in the Yahoo article that takes the reader to the CNBC article, MT Jockstrap. There is a hyperlink in the CNBC article that takes the reader to the New York Times article, MT Jockstrap. Do you not understand how Flighty, Yahoo, and CNBC are misquoting -- lying -- about what the New York Times says Powell said, MT Jockstrap? Are you unable -- not smart enough -- to trace the source of the story through Flighty's post to Yahoo; then to CNBC to the New York Times to see that they are misquoting -- lying -- about what the New York Times says Powell said, MT Jockstrap?

Why in the fuck do you keep repeating the same shit?
Let me break it down in to micro thoughts for you.
1.The OP omitted the comments from Conason.
2.I posted a reply mentioning Conason .
3.That is where you should be able to conclude that I have read the full story and found where Conason said that Powell said to use a Government e-mail for the classified e-mails.
4.So when I asked for another source what would make you think I had not read the one you keep referring to?

So, do you have another source other than Conason ? Yes or no?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

If you read my post to him you would know I did, and I simply asked if he had another source. Guess not. He had to call you in to help out. You are a good little helper too.

You're a liar and a time-wasting troll. If you had actually read the NYT article you would have seen that Conasan is described as a "longtime defender of the Clintons". So I ask you again, cocksucker - on what basis do you call this journalist a "hack" and a "liar" and an "unreliable source".

You obviously never even heard of Joe Conasan until you opened this thread! Stop pretending you're well-read or well-informed. You fool no one. Time for you to go to bed, little boy!

Oh, and stop posting selfies... this is the wrong forum, you stupid twat!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Why in the fuck do you keep repeating the same shit?
Let me break it down in to micro thoughts for you.
1.The OP omitted the comments from Conason.
2.I posted a reply mentioning Conason .
3.That is where you should be able to conclude that I have read the full story and found where Conason said that Powell said to use a Government e-mail for the classified e-mails.
4.So when I asked for another source what would make you think I had not read the one you keep referring to?

So, do you have another source other than Conason ? Yes or no?

Because you're obviously too fucking stupid to understand the first, second and third time that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying about what the New York Times reported Powell said, MT Jockstrap.

I don't need any fucking source other than the one that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are misquoting to prove that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying, MT Jockstrap.

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're a liar and a time-wasting troll. If you had actually read the NYT article you would have seen that Conasan is described as a "longtime defender of the Clintons". So I ask you again, cocksucker - on what basis do you call this journalist a "hack" and a "liar" and an "unreliable source".

You obviously never even heard of Joe Conasan until you opened this thread! Stop pretending you're well-read or well-informed. You fool no one. Time for you to go to bed, little boy!

Oh, and stop posting selfies... this is the wrong forum, you stupid twat!

I"m sorry, if I had not read the article I would not have known about Conasan, so how would that make any sense? I asked if there was any other source and so far there does not seem to be.
I am not trying to be well read I am applying logic. How about this from now on any source you find as credible you must accept it as credible at all times not just when you agree with it.

As for the "selfie" you said I could share it. You don"t like it when someone gives it back to you do ya cocksucker ?

[CuteOldGuy]

Which one are you in that pic, MT Jockstrap?

[MT Pockets]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Because you're obviously too fucking stupid to understand the first, second and third time that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying about what the New York Times reported Powell said, MT Jockstrap.

I don't need any fucking source other than the one that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are misquoting to prove that flighty, Yahoo and CNBC are lying, MT Jockstrap.

Wait. Did you just say you only need Yahoo and CNBC to prove that Yahoo and CNBC are lying? I think I saw that episode on Star Trek
You know where Kirk told the Android that he was lying and everything he said was a lie. The Android went into a mind spin because if he was lying then he was telling the truth but if he was telling the truth was was lying and so and so on. Kinds like when Bush did the fool me once skit on SNL. No wait that wasn't a skit was it. Just typical conservative logic. Hell I am glad I am not an Android you almost got me with that one.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by MT Pockets

I"m sorry, if I had not read the article I would not have known about Conasan, so how would that make any sense?

You called him a "hack" and a "liar" and an "unreliable source". Leaving aside the fact that the NYT referred to him as a "longtime defender of the Clintons" - WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE AUTHOR?

This is the third time I've asked you, troll.

If you're too fucking stupid and uneducated to understand the question, just say so. Otherwise, cite specific articles and/or book passages you have read that led you to conclude Joe Conasan is a "liar" and a "hack" and an "unreliable source".

I don't know the guy from a cake of soap so I have no opinion whether he is credible or not. You obviously have an opinion - so tell us where it came from or crawl back under a rock.