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.

 

Clinton Email Scandal: Here’s One Thing Hillary Was Trying To Hide (editorial)

page: 2
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Yes, I know full well what I did.

I find it hypocritical that you would talk about "real information" in one post and then turn around and post a link to a Fox News story who's information comes from unsourced witnesses.

So the point is, it's a contradiction.




posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Yes, I know full well what I did.

I find it hypocritical that you would talk about "real information" in one post and then turn around and post a link to a Fox News story who's information comes from unsourced witnesses.

So the point is, it's a contradiction.

Even though I explained what I was referring to, you still labor under your mistaken idea.
Sorry, I can't help you any more than that, or I would.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra


As we’ve said before, it looks as if Clinton used her job at the State Department to funnel cash into her family’s nonprofit organization.

You don't really think she (or any politician for that matter) is really about spreading democracy and humanitarian aid, do you? Its always about the friggin money, power and control of territory, people and resources.
The whole US government is being covered for by keeping our noses buried in Hillarys uh, (ahem) 'server'.


By the looks of it, that is one filthy, rotten server.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Yes, I know full well what I did.

I find it hypocritical that you would talk about "real information" in one post and then turn around and post a link to a Fox News story who's information comes from unsourced witnesses.

So the point is, it's a contradiction.

Even though I explained what I was referring to, you still labor under your mistaken idea.
Sorry, I can't help you any more than that, or I would.


Perhaps i am mistaken. That is a possibility.

Haven't paid enough attention to it, to be honest. Was just sharing an observation I made as I was quickly glancing over things.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   
It took over a decade to bring Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to justice and their web wasn't nearly as tangled, convoluted, obfuscated, and technical.

This machine has been in the making for a long time and it was built by lawyers and corrupt politicians. It is going to take investigative geniuses to deconstruct it and some time.

Bill had Chinagate. Can you imagine what a Hillary presidency will have?



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MysterX

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Xcathdra


As we’ve said before, it looks as if Clinton used her job at the State Department to funnel cash into her family’s nonprofit organization.

You don't really think she (or any politician for that matter) is really about spreading democracy and humanitarian aid, do you? Its always about the friggin money, power and control of territory, people and resources.
The whole US government is being covered for by keeping our noses buried in Hillarys uh, (ahem) 'server'.


By the looks of it, that is one filthy, rotten server.



Most will remain 'classified', too. They can't reveal her activity surrounding libya and the death of qaddafi, BenGhazi, and the many phone calls to Trump to get him to run and trash the GOP.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

then occasionally there is the one who does not need the money and wants to help his country.



posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: intrptr

then occasionally there is the one who does not need the money and wants to help his country.


Occasionally? Its an exclusive club, they don't let anyone in that isn't willing to go along with the 'Program'. The illusion they feed you is its 'balanced' (as in two party), but really they all go one way together.

Especially when it comes to endless war and endless debt.

I don't hear any of them debating the 8000 hundred pound gorilla in the room. Just where to spend the next trillion dollars on some defense procurement.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

No it's not . Fox is a propaganda machine that's been called out more than once for having it wrong. They are investigating the security of the server. There is not nor has there ever been a criminal investigation into the e mails.

mediamatters.org...

That page has plenty of links to other sources.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Doesn't matter what floor you get out on that piece is nothing but garbage. Head down to street level and put it out at the curb for pick up.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

If you know the truth and pay attention to the news, you will find that they all get it wrong some of the time.
That leaves you zero news sources that can be trusted.
A handy thing for Hillary supporters, no?

Has media matters ever got anything wrong?
Or are they perfect?

edit on b000000312016-03-26T13:50:14-05:0001America/ChicagoSat, 26 Mar 2016 13:50:14 -0500100000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Zero? Not one?
Did you look at what I linked? There are plenty of sources you can choose your own.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You know as wel l as I do that Fox network is biased against Hillary. They very frequently get it wrong when it comes to her and their sources are always "Unnamed US Atty or a source close to the investigation. "

They inflame the stories. Like when Pagliano got immunity for speaking. Fox touts INDICTMENT EMINENT . WTF?



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Zero? Not one?
Did you look at what I linked? There are plenty of sources you can choose your own.

You are the one that chastised me in another thread for believing everything that I read.
There is no network that gets the news right 100% of the time.
I don't believe everything I read, nor do I discount everything as being false just because of the source.
Ask Gary Hart if the National Enquirer was wrong when they broke the Donna Rice story.
I will patiently wait for more big news on the corruption angle between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

None of them need to get it right 100% of the time to be reliable. And I don't claim that any are always wrong because they get some things wrong. I'm just not going to take anything that Fox says at face value. I will always search out another source.
Media Matters collects stories from across mass media. Their format is asking questions and finding sources for the answers.



posted on Mar, 26 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

How is this woman even running for President?

And - I wonder how much the Libyan government paid to her Foundation in order to get her to blame Benghazi on a video (and the US.)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well I guess well see if there were any security breaches. Rumors and leaks say no. You know how much weight they hold.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I'm still waiting for that real information.

And the beat goes on.



new topics




 
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join