Bay1Bri

The thing Christianity needs more than anything is Christians.

What do you study in college? Do you date, or is it too risky?

No offense, but i become very skeptical when someone says don't trust the "experts." Who are you referring to as experts that people should not rely on, and who would be a better source of information? EDIT for clarity

That's your secret? You're always hungry?

Seriously, though, well done.

I know I'm late, but whatever, I'll say what I wanted anyway.

Two questions, both pertaining to your organization's credibility.

One: On the issue of impartiality. I do not question the veracity of the contents of the emails about HRC's campaign. However, if your organization is committed to impartial access to information, how do you reconcile holding verified information back to time it for "maximum impact," which was the reason I believe you gave for releasing the Podesta emails in waves instead of all at once. Shouldn't an impartial distributer of information release any information it has once it has it (and has been vetted, of course)?

Two, your organization's alleged collusion with Russia. Given that your organization threatened to release information on Russia and then didn't, after threats were supposedly made against you by Russian intelligence service. Since then you have not published anything (to my knowledge) negative on Russia, and have obtained a Russian visa and a TV show on Russian television, and even criticized the leak of the Panama Papers as a US plot to attack Putin (a strange position for the founder of an organization whose goal is to leak documents).

Given that, why should the average person on the street believe you when you say Russia was not the source of the Podesta emails, when your organization, and you personally, have had a cooperative and positive relationship since you refused to leak information on Russia back in 2010?