Originally Posted by n david (Post 1474449)

What's worse, Aquila -- Wikileaks publishing an email showing Donna Brazille helping Clinton cheat in a debate or that Brazille actually did help Clinton cheat in a debate and just recently admitted to lying about it?

What's worse -- Wikileaks publishing an email from the DNC heads exposing their fraudulent actions, or that the DNC actually committed fraud in its primary?

Also, please tell me the difference here:

A) The Wikileaks obtains an email about the DNC committing fraud and publishes it.

B) The NYTimes obtains an email about the DNC committing fraud and publishes it.

The NYTimes itself printed this 12/13/16: "Though Mr. Assange did not say so, WikiLeaks’ best defense may be the conduct of the mainstream American media. Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence."

So tell me again how bad Wikileaks was for publishing emails when "every major publication" and news network ran stories and headlines using the very same emails?

Originally Posted by Aquila (Post 1475456)

It's about far more than all that. Be patient. You'll see. :secretservice

Originally Posted by n david (Post 1475467)

Still waiting.

Hey, what happened over at the Hagee thread?