It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Benghazi Committee: New Emails Show Clinton Promoted Blumenthal Interests in Libya

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

The Republican-ran committee already said there was nothing to the Benghazi issue. They cleared her and Obama of any wrongdoing.

Didn't you get the memo?


That was for the White House and Obama.

And some of those "conclusions" may have already been proven wrong.

Different issues I thought.

But.





posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


The real question is why so many keep falling for the propaganda.


Are you saying that all these emails to Blumenthal are fake?
You know it, we know it...Hillary is exploding because she
is losing control of her spin ability.

And why is she in this position of weakness? Because she
made terrible errors in judgement?

Sure, the FBI is still out on the case, which is the
problem and owned by Hillary.

"I made a mistake"
HRC



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

The Republican-ran committee already said there was nothing to the Benghazi issue. They cleared her and Obama of any wrongdoing.

Didn't you get the memo?


That was for the White House and Obama.

And some of those "conclusions" may have already been proven wrong.

Different issues I thought.

But.



That report cleared the entire administration.

Don't spread propaganda.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships



Are you saying that all these emails to Blumenthal are fake?


No. What I am saying is that we need to find clear evidence of wrongdoing before we jump to any conclusion.

You know, cart before the horse.



You know it, we know it...Hillary is exploding because she
is losing control of her spin ability.


She's been very quiet on this issue, actually. What control has she lost? Please elaborate.



And why is she in this position of weakness? Because she
made terrible errors in judgement?


Why is she in a position of weakness? Because Fox and other right-wing media outlets said so? Please elaborate.

Also, can the errors in judgment convict her of anything? So far, no.



Sure, the FBI is still out on the case, which is the
problem and owned by Hillary.


Hillary owns the FBI? That statement does not make sense. Can you clarify?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The report was from the Intel Committee, not the Benghazi Committee.

Different



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

The report was from the Intel Committee, not the Benghazi Committee.

Different


Yep, I think you better go back and read that report.

They clear all involved parties of any wrongdoing.

Nice try though.

By the way, that is not the committee's report. you're trying to obfuscate the issue.
edit on 8-10-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Analysis & Quotes would help.



You know, for "comparison".




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

No. What I am saying is that we need to find clear evidence of wrongdoing before we jump to any conclusion.

You know, cart before the horse.



Er...No. The way it works; Find evidence of wrongdoing, then put that
to the test of a Judge. Which is exactly what is happening, I think it
is over 13 or more independent FOIA's, all centered on HRC's emails
which are the property of the U.S. Government.

She was not emailing Patraeus over a Yoga routine.



Also, can the errors in judgment convict her of anything? So far, no.


An election is about her electability.
She is not, for many reasons, this scandal is just one of many.

Why would anyone choose to vote for her to begin with?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships



Er...No. The way it works; Find evidence of wrongdoing, then put that
to the test of a Judge. Which is exactly what is happening


If that is correct, what has been the ruling of the judge? Has any determination been made? Or is it possible that you are coming to your own conclusion before due process has run it's course?



An election is about her electability.


We're talking about legal proceedings. What does that have to do with an election?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Analysis & Quotes would help.



You know, for "comparison".



Obfuscation.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What's sad is anyone defending CLinton.




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm not defending her. What I am doing is standing-up for the constitutional right to due process and many of you are not only convicting her before the process has ran it's course for political purposes, you are casting a black mark on that very constitutional process for your own ignorant desires.

Do not all people in this country have a right to due process, or only those you politically agree with?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: xuenchen

Obfuscation.



And I bet the thousands of emails released after the Intel investigation will discredit their efforts.

I think blackmail was involved with that investigation.




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Investigations are bad? Why is that? 

Sarcasm on my part.


But what has been proven so far? 

So, is there nothing to prove?
Why would she stonewall the investigators then?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

What ?

Due process goes out the freggin window for elections.

It's how the last guy got elected.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Hillary is being afforded all the due process.

She has the right to remain silent.

Anything she says (or wrote, or emailed) can and will be used against her in a court of law.




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy



So, is there nothing to prove?


I don't know. Shouldn't we wait to see what is determined before we come to any conclusion?



Why would she stonewall the investigators then?


I don't know that either. It may seem shady, and it may be, but that does not convict her of anything and that should/would be the goal, is it not?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

What ?

Due process goes out the freggin window for elections.

It's how the last guy got elected.


Well, then I guess you are no better than the last guy because you don't adhere to the constitution.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: introvert

Hillary is being afforded all the due process.

She has the right to remain silent.

Anything she says (or wrote, or emailed) can and will be used against her in a court of law.





You're not allowing her the right to due process. You are posting propaganda to sway opinion.

Quit #ting on the Constitution.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Hey now you open this can of worms.

Where was the DUE PROCESS you denied to the residents of Roseberg, Oregon calling them names yesterday eh ?

Two can play this game.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where's THEIR due process eh ?
edit on 8-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join