“the newest batch of leaked emails show Hillary, in her own words, admitting to doing just that, funding and running ISIS.”
Where does it say this?
These click bait sites are pathetic.
“the newest batch of leaked emails show Hillary, in her own words, admitting to doing just that, funding and running ISIS.”
Where does it say this?
Exactly correct, ifinnegan. It does not say what the headline says. This is interesting, but not damaging.
Same question for me.
Hate to agree but reading the bit before the shaded area reads like an attempt to defeat ISIS.
The email is from HRC to Podesta, is it not?
In the email it is written that the Saudis and Qataris are clandestinely funding ISIL, correct?
So HRC knew her contributors and backers were funding ISIL. Further, she remarks that pressure needs to be brought on them to keep the ‘balance’ presumably meaning to keep the funding responsibilities in the balance.
Further again, she remarks that the operation is a para-military low-profile operation. In other words a guerilla war.
So she knew and not only that she was controlling by pressuring SA and Qatar.
Add in the fact that she is supported in her campaign by the Saudis and Qataris, and the same contribute to the Clinton Foundation, and there is more than enough to indict.
But indictment will only happen if Congress is moved to act. They can, even at this late date file articles of impeachment against Obama if he fails to indict her.
Congress will not do this on their own. It will require a groundswell from voters dishing hell to their reps everyday 24/7 until the press can no longer ignore it.
Even if an indictment is not made before election day, the firestorm brought by the voters is enough to deny her the election, Then, Trump can as promised, have his AG appoint a special prosecutor to investigate all this.
If Obama pardons her, he is guilty of treason. He cannot pardon himself. So he will not pardon her.
Assange never said she would be indicted. He only said there would be enough to indict her. And here it is.
Yes, reading the excerpt at the top, I only see words to the effect that Qatar and Saudi Arabia need to be pressured.
The all-in for ISIS text has not been seen yet, so it sounds like an exaggeration.
I don’t see it either.
Thanks, I thought it was just me that failed to see the connection. While I fervently wish we could find a Clinton-Libya connection (more likely), this “expose” proves nothing - yet - on Syria. In fact, the lines before the highlighted portion indicate US diplomatic pressure on S Arabia, etc.