Explain this shit

Explain this shit

Other urls found in this thread:

wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Politifact is biased and donates to the Democratic party, what they report is indeed true but they don't bother to report all the heaps of other lies Hitlery has said.

what do you have to back this up?
I honestly want to know, this is a Pulitzer Prize winning publication

I'm sure you are more accurate about the thruth than a pulitzer prize winning thing that does not get the data on a candidate from what the opposing party yells

There is nothing to back it up because the only ones claiming it's biassed add butt mad republicans who refuse to believe how much their candidate lies

Common sense and everything that has been revealed about Clinton so far leads me to believe the site is extremely biased in favor of the Democratic party

so you're just going to claim it's biased because you don't like what it's saying. Gotcha

No mention of email leaks, no mention of history of defendinf rapists, no mention of war crimes, no mention of Benghazi attacks, no mention of private server.

Instead they pick her up on little white lies, instead of saying all, they say she should of said most.

It's pathetic, nevermind the fact she lied to the FBI, denied knowing in advance an attack was coming, denied knowing that gross negligence was a crime when handling state secrets, hosted her own private server to prevent freedom of information requests and find out just what is going in the Clinton Foundation denied denied denied.

Any one of those would be grounds for charges for charges but since she is a Democrat and/or a woman, she is given a free pass.

wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/
wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/
wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/
wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

They work on verifying or debunking COMMENTS. Don't be buttmad that your candidate comes out worse.
There are plenty of other journalism sites that do exposes on things like the email scandal

great ad hominem, sadly, thats not what the picture is about

Source: Republican controlled publications?
Btw, email servers are private, and the opposition just acted like it was a scandal and everyone followed

At this point, what difference does it make?

a lot of difference. nice reference tho

No, I'm claiming it's biased because there's no chance she would be cast in a positive light after they read everything that has been revealed about her. Keep living in your dream world.

Score Card:
Clinton
emails scandal: confirmed, but content unknown. some classified material
Benghazi: after EIGHT congressional inquiries no fault found

Trump:
Politifact: Lies almost constantly. Flip flops on almost everything.

>Btw, email servers are private, and the opposition just acted like it was a scandal and everyone followed

>Storing classified infomation on an unregistered device is illegal
>Storing classified infomation on a unprotected server is illegal
>Granting access to an unprotected server to people who lack relevant vetting and clearance is illegal
>Deleting government emails (of any level) is illegal
>Lying to the FBI about the above is illegal
>Gross mishandling state secrets is illegal
>Using a private email address for state business is illegal

You're talking about a bunch of conspiracy theories pal. The only thing she did that's proven was have a personal email server when she shouldn't have. The DNC also tried to rig the election in favor of her but she doesn't control them, and honestly she was gonna win anyway.

These are facts, m8. It's even on the header. PolitiFACT. It's not about casting someone in a positive light.

>Btw, email servers are private

lul

The facts speak louder than your willful delusion ever can

Yeah, just ignore the fact that the server was actually protected by the secret service so it could be used as an email server for governmental business