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 Clinton aide (Cheryl Mills) moves to block release of deposition video

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0hlord

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 0hlord
a reply to: introvert

Who cares how it looks?

Hilary Clinton.


And the Right Wing nutters. Can't forget about them.

They don't care about context. They care about how it "looks".


Its not just about the right wing. Its also about the undecideds. Especially upper class influential ones.


That means absolutely nothing.



No, im just explaining the real reasons behind this action, not making the case.


Not really.



but Clinton is 500 pledged delegates ahead of Bernie sanders... barely squeeking by? ...that is definately not true...


That is between Sanders and Clinton. I was talking about those candidates vs Trump.

Focus.




posted on May, 25 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable



Or could it be that she plans on telling the truth and could say some damaging things about Hillary without the Right Wing taking things out of context. But that couldn't possibly be, right?


If that's true, why stop the audio/visual? Either way, it's going to get out.

Your assertion doesn't make sense.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert





Like I said, I can't blame her. JW and the Right Wing nuts are known for taking things completely out of context or making slick edits.


You mean like Left leaning Katie Couric doing some slick edit against gun ownership?

Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Come on introvert you got to know that both party are one in the same if not atleast that both party do the same thing. There is no innocent non agenda MSM news source on either side.

edit on 02531America/ChicagoWed, 25 May 2016 20:02:38 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

You could be right. She is also the one who stormed out of her FBI interview. Huma will be vindicated in the end, imo, because there are emails where she pleads with Hillary to start using government email. Bryan Pagliano has nothing to worry about either because of the immunity, but the feds sure as hell didn't grant that to take down Cheryl Mills. They no doubt have Clinton in their crosshairs and the IG Report that came out today makes it that much easier for them to recommend indictment.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: introvert





Like I said, I can't blame her. JW and the Right Wing nuts are known for taking things completely out of context or making slick edits.


You mean like Left leaning Katie Couric doing some slick edit against gun ownership?

Audio Shows Katie Couric Documentary Deceptively Edited Interview with Pro-Gun Activists

Come on introvert you got to know that both party are one in the same if not atleast that both party do the same thing. There is no innocent non agenda MSM news source on either side.


I've already addressed that aspect. In this case, JW is a known nutter site ran by a Right Wing nut. She is trying to protect herself to the best of her ability.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

yeah yeah...



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




W is a known nutter site ran by a Right Wing nut. She is trying to protect herself to the best of her ability.


But JW is not the owner of the video, its a Freedom of Information request.

I don’t' blame her for trying to protect herself ,but that’s a weak argument she is making.

Plus she could also release the full video to counter argue any snippets jw puts forward.

edit on 09531America/ChicagoWed, 25 May 2016 20:09:27 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: filched

...and keep in mind that Mills was on the board of the Clinton Foundation as well...another area of interest to the FBI.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42



But JW is not the owner of the video, its a Freedom of Information request.


It's a deposition and this is what is says in the OP:


is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday


Sounds to me like it is specifically directed at JW and what they can release.



I don’t' blame her for trying to protect herself ,but that’s a weak argument she is making.


Not really, considering how the Right Wing propaganda machine operates. Look how this has been spun just in this thread. It's easy to see how people will take things out of context for the sake of agenda.

Considering that, I don't blame her. Smart move, actually.



Plus she could also release the full video to counter argue any snippets jw puts forward.


Wont matter. The damage will be done if JW or other sites are able to post audio/video out of context.
edit on 25-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable



Or could it be that she plans on telling the truth and could say some damaging things about Hillary without the Right Wing taking things out of context. But that couldn't possibly be, right?


If that's true, why stop the audio/visual? Either way, it's going to get out.

Your assertion doesn't make sense.


My assertion doesn't make sense? You're the one who brought up the Right Wing taking her testimony out of context. But as usual, all you Hillary zombies blame all her lies on a vast RIght Wing conspiracy.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable



Or could it be that she plans on telling the truth and could say some damaging things about Hillary without the Right Wing taking things out of context. But that couldn't possibly be, right?


If that's true, why stop the audio/visual? Either way, it's going to get out.

Your assertion doesn't make sense.


My assertion doesn't make sense? You're the one who brought up the Right Wing taking her testimony out of context. But as usual, all you Hillary zombies blame all her lies on a vast RIght Wing conspiracy.


If she is going to tell the "truth" and it is going to be damaging to Hillary, why would she take this step? It's going to get out anyway. Your assertion makes no sense.

And what I speak of is not a Right Wing conspiracy. The Right Wing is known for having an honesty problem and have issues with taking things out of context.
edit on 25-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   
It's really quite believable that what Mills really fears is JW and networks employing body and micro-expression readers.
Releasing text alone would make it impossible to detect whether or not she was answering questions truthfully.
edit on 25-5-2016 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable



Or could it be that she plans on telling the truth and could say some damaging things about Hillary without the Right Wing taking things out of context. But that couldn't possibly be, right?


If that's true, why stop the audio/visual? Either way, it's going to get out.

Your assertion doesn't make sense.


My assertion doesn't make sense? You're the one who brought up the Right Wing taking her testimony out of context. But as usual, all you Hillary zombies blame all her lies on a vast RIght Wing conspiracy.


Your assertion makes no sense.



You keep repeating this. Just because you have a comprehension problem, no need to say it again.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Yeah, because Trump's words are NEVER taken out of context or spun in any way negative.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: interupt42



But JW is not the owner of the video, its a Freedom of Information request.


It's a deposition and this is what is says in the OP:


is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday


Sounds to me like it is specifically directed at JW and what they can release.



I don’t' blame her for trying to protect herself ,but that’s a weak argument she is making.


Not really, considering how the Right Wing propaganda machine operates. Look how this has been spun just in this thread. It's easy to see how people will take things out of context for the sake of agenda.

Considering that, I don't blame her. Smart move, actually.



Plus she could also release the full video to counter argue any snippets jw puts forward.


Wont matter. The damage will be done if JW or other sites are able to post audio/video out of context.


The damage is already done and it is not the fault of judicial watch. The damage has been caused by Hillary herself as well as her close advisors. Might as well stick a fork in her, she's done.

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: interupt42



But JW is not the owner of the video, its a Freedom of Information request.


It's a deposition and this is what is says in the OP:


is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday


Sounds to me like it is specifically directed at JW and what they can release.



I don’t' blame her for trying to protect herself ,but that’s a weak argument she is making.


Not really, considering how the Right Wing propaganda machine operates. Look how this has been spun just in this thread. It's easy to see how people will take things out of context for the sake of agenda.

Considering that, I don't blame her. Smart move, actually.



Plus she could also release the full video to counter argue any snippets jw puts forward.


Wont matter. The damage will be done if JW or other sites are able to post audio/video out of context.


The damage is already done and it is not the fault of judicial watch. The damage has been caused by Hillary herself as well as her close advisors.


Indeed. I don't see why taking things out of context is even necessary. The evidence available to the public alone, in context , is pretty damning all on its own.

Getting things taken out of context may be a concern but as another poster alluded to, it's more likely they are just as concerned with what the in-context transcript will show as they are with what lies and exaggeration that may be strewn up around it.

Other than Mills outright pleading the fifth, blocking audio and video from being released is probably the extent of the damage control they can realistically muster.

edit on 5/25/2016 by atomish because: Addtl



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: UnBreakable



Or could it be that she plans on telling the truth and could say some damaging things about Hillary without the Right Wing taking things out of context. But that couldn't possibly be, right?


If that's true, why stop the audio/visual? Either way, it's going to get out.

Your assertion doesn't make sense.


My assertion doesn't make sense? You're the one who brought up the Right Wing taking her testimony out of context. But as usual, all you Hillary zombies blame all her lies on a vast RIght Wing conspiracy.


Your assertion makes no sense.



You keep repeating this. Just because you have a comprehension problem, no need to say it again.


It's not about comprehension, it's about common sense.

Unfortunately, your assertion lacks both.

Apparently, many lack the ability to notice that your post doesn't make sense. Oh well, not my problem.
edit on 25-5-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: interupt42



But JW is not the owner of the video, its a Freedom of Information request.


It's a deposition and this is what is says in the OP:


is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday


Sounds to me like it is specifically directed at JW and what they can release.



I don’t' blame her for trying to protect herself ,but that’s a weak argument she is making.


Not really, considering how the Right Wing propaganda machine operates. Look how this has been spun just in this thread. It's easy to see how people will take things out of context for the sake of agenda.

Considering that, I don't blame her. Smart move, actually.



Plus she could also release the full video to counter argue any snippets jw puts forward.


Wont matter. The damage will be done if JW or other sites are able to post audio/video out of context.


The damage is already done and it is not the fault of judicial watch. The damage has been caused by Hillary herself as well as her close advisors. Might as well stick a fork in her, she's done.

Cheers - Dave


That doesn't mean anything. What you posted is a catch-phrase popular to those that desire confirmation bias.

So much for logic.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I seriously doubt that a judge who ordered discovery testimony, only because the state department refused to provide the information requested, is going to allow further shenanigans in a FOI case.
They didn't want to testify they should have released the emails as ordered.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: interupt42



But JW is not the owner of the video, its a Freedom of Information request.


It's a deposition and this is what is says in the OP:


is asking a federal judge to order a conservative group not to release audio or video recordings of a deposition Mills is scheduled to give Friday


Sounds to me like it is specifically directed at JW and what they can release.



I don’t' blame her for trying to protect herself ,but that’s a weak argument she is making.


Not really, considering how the Right Wing propaganda machine operates. Look how this has been spun just in this thread. It's easy to see how people will take things out of context for the sake of agenda.

Considering that, I don't blame her. Smart move, actually.



Plus she could also release the full video to counter argue any snippets jw puts forward.


Wont matter. The damage will be done if JW or other sites are able to post audio/video out of context.


The damage is already done and it is not the fault of judicial watch. The damage has been caused by Hillary herself as well as her close advisors. Might as well stick a fork in her, she's done.

Cheers - Dave


That doesn't mean anything. What you posted is a catch-phrase popular to those that desire confirmation bias.

So much for logic.


Common sense is a rather rare commodity as has been evidenced on the part of Hillary supporters. Don't even get me started on logic, circumstantial or empirical evidence. Issues surrounding Hillary's illegal actions are legendary, for the last 20 years anyway. If you want to stick a rose in her ass and call it a vase, that is your right. Just don't expect the rest of us to be brainwashed, it's not happening.

The FBI, doj or preferably an independent court and prosecutor need to try her, both at a federal criminal level and a class action civil level. I was thinking maybe in open international court, that would be nice ;-) use some of that money the US is paying the UN to subvert the US

Cheers - Dave
edit on 5/25.2016 by bobs_uruncle because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join