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.

 

Hillary is "often confused" says Huma

page: 6
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Domo1

Where's the email before this? What is it that is "very important to do" that she might be confused about. Wasn't this also like a month after she suffered that concussion that Karl Rove tried so hard to capitalize on?

Fast forward three years and she more than held her own against a panel of hostile Republicans for 10 straight hours of questioning on national television. I don't know how more vetted her mental acuity could be.

Disagree with her policies, say what you will about with her past positions, poor decisions, flip-flopping, disingenuous behavior, lying, etc (I know, I could be talking about Donald Trump here) but there's nothing about her recent behavior that makes her seem easily confused — if anything, she seems more hawkish than before.

Huma didn't say, " Hillary is confused about this one very complicated thing".
Huma said that Hillary is 'often confused'.
Indicates an ongoing and frequent problem.
edit on b000000312016-05-07T20:38:46-05:0008America/ChicagoSat, 07 May 2016 20:38:46 -0500800000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BO XIAN



Not just the mildly illegal--the brazenly criminal--with the cheek to act like it was her 'divine right' . . . to 'off with their heads' or whatever struck her evil whims.


What crime was she convicted of?

That's new to me.

I'm not sure if you are just playing ignorant, but there is kinda this whole FBI investigation going on.


An investigation is not a conviction. You do know that, right?

Tell me what she's been convicted of to justify calling her a "brazen criminal".

If there wasn't something she might be convicted of there would be no investigation.

Just because her past hasn't led to any convictions doesn't mean her future won't.


Then you can't call her a criminal yet.

Precisely my point.

When did I?


I used the term 'you" in a general sense.

When you do that don't quote someone.


Then stop responding to my posts. Problem solved.

Otherwise, I shall do as I please and clarify when needed...as I just did.


but I responded specifically to you, not the masses, see how that works?


Let's wait to see if she is taken to trail and convicted first.

If she's taken to the trail she will be convicted by her peers


That's legally binding and adheres to the process of the law. As it should be.

Being found guilty by internet hacks that can't keep their facts straight is meaningless.

you totally missed it.

TRAIL



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Domo1

"Often confused" is the consequence of continuous lying where you have to make up crap to cover-up the "often-embarrassing" truth.

ETA: for instance:

Speaking in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi Thursday afternoon, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to claim she didn't blame the September 11, 2012 attack on a YouTube video.

"Where did the false narrative start? It started with you, Madame Secretary," Ohio Republican Jim Jordan pressed Clinton.

"I referred to the video that night in a very specific way. I said some have sought to justify the attack because of the video. I used those words deliberately, not to ascribe a motive to every attacker but as a warning to those across the region that there was no justification for further attacks," Clinton said.

Jordan also pointed out that while Clinton was telling the American people a video was to blame, she was emailing her family, the Libyan government and the Egyptian government about a terror attack. At the same time the Obama administration was arguing the deaths of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Information Management Officer Sean Smith were a result of a spontaneous protest that got out of control, not the result of a terror attack.

"We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest," Clinton wrote to the Egyptian prime minister the night of September 11, 2012.
townhall.com...
edit on 7-5-2016 by Sublimecraft because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I can't believe I've being compelled to stick up for Hillary Clinton but this is complete BS. Cherry picking lines out of random emails with no context? Lines that don't even support the point you're trying to make? "Documented fact" proving what? That a couple months into becoming Sec of State, she told her aide that she was exhausted while on a trip abroad and having several daily meetings with foreign dignitaries?

This is supposed to be a matter of concern? A point of criticism?

Ridiculous.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BO XIAN



Not just the mildly illegal--the brazenly criminal--with the cheek to act like it was her 'divine right' . . . to 'off with their heads' or whatever struck her evil whims.


What crime was she convicted of?

That's new to me.

I'm not sure if you are just playing ignorant, but there is kinda this whole FBI investigation going on.


An investigation is not a conviction. You do know that, right?

Tell me what she's been convicted of to justify calling her a "brazen criminal".

If there wasn't something she might be convicted of there would be no investigation.

Just because her past hasn't led to any convictions doesn't mean her future won't.


Then you can't call her a criminal yet.

Precisely my point.

When did I?


I used the term 'you" in a general sense.

When you do that don't quote someone.


Then stop responding to my posts. Problem solved.

Otherwise, I shall do as I please and clarify when needed...as I just did.


but I responded specifically to you, not the masses, see how that works?


Let's wait to see if she is taken to trail and convicted first.

If she's taken to the trail she will be convicted by her peers


That's legally binding and adheres to the process of the law. As it should be.

Being found guilty by internet hacks that can't keep their facts straight is meaningless.

you totally missed it.

TRAIL


Campaign trail...ya ya. I got it now.

Sorry, I was trying to have an adult conversation and missed the kiddie pun.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Domo1

It amazes me people still think this woman is fit for ANY political office other than white house janitor.


It would be too convenient for her and get her back into the place, plus she has plenty of "cleaners", ie"Hey has anyone seen Mr Foster since lunch??? Me neither, that's soooo weird..." As she's rubbing her hands together smirking maniacally....I think we need "Hillary's law" enacted, kind of like Megan's law but for crazy sociopath/psychopathic former first ladies or political figures, so they have to register themselves and can't get within 300 ft of a power position... Could also work for fast food and retail management too, pretty much anyone who if given power would lie and cheat or worse to get more of it....let them play in their basements alone with no way to bully and abuse...



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

no don't even go there, I was making light of a post where you said trail instead of trial, went completely over your head I guess.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BO XIAN



Not just the mildly illegal--the brazenly criminal--with the cheek to act like it was her 'divine right' . . . to 'off with their heads' or whatever struck her evil whims.


What crime was she convicted of?

That's new to me.

I'm not sure if you are just playing ignorant, but there is kinda this whole FBI investigation going on.


An investigation is not a conviction. You do know that, right?

Tell me what she's been convicted of to justify calling her a "brazen criminal".

If there wasn't something she might be convicted of there would be no investigation.

Just because her past hasn't led to any convictions doesn't mean her future won't.


Then you can't call her a criminal yet.

Precisely my point.

When did I?


I used the term 'you" in a general sense.

When you do that don't quote someone.


Then stop responding to my posts. Problem solved.

Otherwise, I shall do as I please and clarify when needed...as I just did.


but I responded specifically to you, not the masses, see how that works?


Fair enough. Considering this conversation, I hope I don't see you calling her a criminal.

Otherwise it would mean we didn't learn anything today.

Let's wait to see if she is taken to trail and convicted first.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Trail...Trial. What difference, at this point, does it make?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

over the last several months, we've all seen Clinton giving speech after speech on TV, being interviewed, doing townhalls and participating in debates. Many of us watched more than we probably cared to see of her being grilled on national television for ten hours by some less than friendly political foes. Something that went on for so long without her stumbling that Fox News gave up and turned away to something else because frankly, she was owning a room full of Republicans.

For this if nothing else, she gets my begrudging respect. Much like I have to respect Trump's ability to sell himself to his supporters and manipulate the media to his advantage. Demagogue Donald is a natural born populist politician.

Maybe she was having some effects a month or two after sustaining a severe concussion but it's got absolutely nothing to do with her present condition does it? Do you see recent evidence of her mental acuity suffering? Does she forget what she's talking about like Rick Perry did last election cycle? Rave incoherently like Sarah Palin does every time there's a microphone in her face? No?

Then what exactly are we supposed to be discussing in this thread?



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BO XIAN



Not just the mildly illegal--the brazenly criminal--with the cheek to act like it was her 'divine right' . . . to 'off with their heads' or whatever struck her evil whims.


What crime was she convicted of?

That's new to me.

I'm not sure if you are just playing ignorant, but there is kinda this whole FBI investigation going on.


An investigation is not a conviction. You do know that, right?

Tell me what she's been convicted of to justify calling her a "brazen criminal".

If there wasn't something she might be convicted of there would be no investigation.

Just because her past hasn't led to any convictions doesn't mean her future won't.


Then you can't call her a criminal yet.

Precisely my point.

When did I?


I used the term 'you" in a general sense.

When you do that don't quote someone.


Then stop responding to my posts. Problem solved.

Otherwise, I shall do as I please and clarify when needed...as I just did.


but I responded specifically to you, not the masses, see how that works?


Let's wait to see if she is taken to trail and convicted first.

If she's taken to the trail she will be convicted by her peers


That's legally binding and adheres to the process of the law. As it should be.

Being found guilty by internet hacks that can't keep their facts straight is meaningless.


That's funny. Because it's Internet hackers that brought this story to light.


I hate to ask this, because I fear the answer, but you do know the difference between a "hack" and a "hacker", right?

Ok. I'm not allowed to joke either. Got it.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: introvert

no don't even go there, I was making light of a post where you said trail instead of trial, went completely over your head I guess.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BO XIAN



Not just the mildly illegal--the brazenly criminal--with the cheek to act like it was her 'divine right' . . . to 'off with their heads' or whatever struck her evil whims.


What crime was she convicted of?

That's new to me.

I'm not sure if you are just playing ignorant, but there is kinda this whole FBI investigation going on.


An investigation is not a conviction. You do know that, right?

Tell me what she's been convicted of to justify calling her a "brazen criminal".

If there wasn't something she might be convicted of there would be no investigation.

Just because her past hasn't led to any convictions doesn't mean her future won't.


Then you can't call her a criminal yet.

Precisely my point.

When did I?


I used the term 'you" in a general sense.

When you do that don't quote someone.


Then stop responding to my posts. Problem solved.

Otherwise, I shall do as I please and clarify when needed...as I just did.


but I responded specifically to you, not the masses, see how that works?


Fair enough. Considering this conversation, I hope I don't see you calling her a criminal.

Otherwise it would mean we didn't learn anything today.

Let's wait to see if she is taken to trail and convicted first.


I did miss that. Good catch.

Guess I better step-up my game.

People seem to hang on every word I say these days.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Her triall we be a stop on her trail for jail.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: BO XIAN



Not just the mildly illegal--the brazenly criminal--with the cheek to act like it was her 'divine right' . . . to 'off with their heads' or whatever struck her evil whims.


What crime was she convicted of?

That's new to me.

I'm not sure if you are just playing ignorant, but there is kinda this whole FBI investigation going on.


An investigation is not a conviction. You do know that, right?

Tell me what she's been convicted of to justify calling her a "brazen criminal".

If there wasn't something she might be convicted of there would be no investigation.

Just because her past hasn't led to any convictions doesn't mean her future won't.


Then you can't call her a criminal yet.

Precisely my point.

When did I?


I used the term 'you" in a general sense.

When you do that don't quote someone.


Then stop responding to my posts. Problem solved.

Otherwise, I shall do as I please and clarify when needed...as I just did.


but I responded specifically to you, not the masses, see how that works?


Let's wait to see if she is taken to trail and convicted first.

If she's taken to the trail she will be convicted by her peers


That's legally binding and adheres to the process of the law. As it should be.

Being found guilty by internet hacks that can't keep their facts straight is meaningless.


That's funny. Because it's Internet hackers that brought this story to light.


I hate to ask this, because I fear the answer, but you do know the difference between a "hack" and a "hacker", right?

Guccifer is an admitted hacker, all jokes aside.

Were it not for his hacking we may have never learned of Hillary's private and up to that point almost secret server.


That has nothing to do with my statement. Focus ladies.

Stay on point.

And sexist to boot.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I can't believe I've being compelled to stick up for Hillary Clinton.

I can't believe ANYONE is compelled to stick up for the hill.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




Then what exactly are we supposed to be discussing in this thread?


Hillary Clinton's aide being forced to explain that Hillary is often confused.

You can make weird arguments that her confusion was a result of her sustaining a concussion, but you don't know that. What we do know is that her aide thinks she's always confused, and whether or not thats about her schedule, and more likely her conversation points, it's not a good sign.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Ok, ok.

I switched an 'i' and 'a'. My bad.

You are more than welcome to have a laugh at my expense.

I sure do enjoy plenty at your's.

Childish, but fair game.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I did the same thing and then accidentally added an l when I fixed it, easy to do. The fingers are too fast sometimes.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: introvert

I did the same thing and then accidentally added an l when I fixed it, easy to do. The fingers are too fast sometimes.


Indeed.

I'm also running 4 screens at the same time trying to do some work while I goof off.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: IAMTAT

Her triall we be a stop on her trail for jail.

...then Bill gets more tail.



posted on May, 7 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: butcherguy
Does she forget what she's talking about like Rick Perry did last election cycle? Rave incoherently like Sarah Palin does every time there's a microphone in her face? No?

Last I checked those two aren't running for president, or in a position to choose a possible 5 Supreme Court justices.



new topics




 
47
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join