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's State Dept. Blocked Investigation into Orlando Killer's Mosque

page: 7
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I already gave some plausible answers to that.

But I realize that folks don't wish to be confused with actual facts of the way corrupt governments work.




posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
its not about how our government operates.


Yes, it most certainly is. The Secretary of State cannot 'block' and investigation by the Justice Department without the Justice Departments consent.


the reason i know this is because you havent investigates what the actual whistleblower himself alleges and formulated and intelligent response based on whats actually been alleged by the whistleblower


What claims you want refuted other than the big boner he implies, that Clinton blocked his investigation?


because you havent actually read whats been alleged


Yup, okay, which is why I still have the links up in other windows waiting for you to post what quotes you want addressed so I can view them in context.

Try again if you can.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

they wont even read whats been alleged they just keep regurgitating the same thing

we dont like your thread title

its the most asinine argument ive ever read in ATS history.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlueAjah
If only the government worked in real life as it is supposed to work according to textbooks.
Life would be much more common sense


For the most part it does. In this case there is no evidence to show it did not. Just some claims which make no sense if you understand how the various departments function.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
Im sharing the information in an attempted chance of having an intelligent conversation with someone who actually reads what the whisteblower has to say about it


Now, now.

As my Dissertation Chairman chided me . . . it's not wise to try and teach some critters to sing.

It only annoys the critter and frustrates you.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
THEY COULD pull the money from any such operation.


Pull money for what operation? An investigation?

Wow. Maybe you can tell me what Congressional agency does investigations?

Stop digging.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Uhhhhhhh . . . how many more decades do you anticipate that 100% of the facts will come out about how

the government really worked

just prior to Pearl Harbor?

regarding the Kennedy assassination?

The year 2050? 2150?

However, I understand you have a big investment in unrealistic descriptions and expectations.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I know im not really trying to get them to change their stance im just pointing out for anyone reading why their position is so childish

im suggesting that the reader actually read whats stated by the whisterblower

anyone whos got even two brain cells in their head will see that and go and actually look at the information instead of attacking thread titles like only a moron would do



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Is this when you start throwing s*** at the wall in hopes that it sticks? The thread title is about Secretary Pantsuit blocking an investigation by the Justice Department that was headed by Eric Holder who answered to Dear Leader.

Explain how she does this.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Thanks.

That post sealed as fairly proven some pending assumptions and inferences I was holding somewhat loosely.

Nice for a few more loose ends to be tidied up.

I think I have a better understanding now about

either

your awareness of government

or

your agenda in blathering pontifications about same.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

why would he explain how she does this when hes not the one alleging that it happened the whistleblower is?

im just saying..



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
why would he explain how she does this when hes not the one alleging that it happened the whistleblower is?


Because he thinks it can function that way and I would love to see him explain it.

In detail of course.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I already did . . . a time or 3.

The language was clear.

There were few big words.

The sentence construction was simple enough.

I bear no responsibility for memory or reading comprehension on the part of my readers.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: MysticPearl

It's on you to discredit the sources and show where they're wrong.

Go ahead, we'll wait.


You're a robot. Prove me wrong. See how that works? The burden of proof is on the person who is foisting garbage on us, not on us to discredit the garbage.

Says the guy who produces one garbage Trump thread after another.

All someone with a basic intelligence level has to do is show why the info in the OP is wrong. Any monkey can point to something as called BS.

That you and your ilk cannot, and instead hijack thread after thread with nonsense, attacking sources instead of discrediting them, yada, yada, is evidence of how little of an argument you and your ilk have.

It's called grabbing at straws.
edit on 14-6-2016 by MysticPearl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: onequestion

Oh I figured it out and it took... oh I dunno, thirty seconds?

SEE SOMETHING, SAY NOTHING - (HARDCOVER) $19.95

That's Philip Haney's book. Guess who the publisher is? WND Books. Yeah, "liberal mainstream media" is so agenda driven. You just got duped into spreading misinformation to help WND sell books.

How's that make you feel about WND?


I seem to recall Obama wrote a book or two as well!!! Come to think of it so had Hillary! Your point is moot!
edit on 14-6-2016 by sirlancelot because: added word



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
I already did . . . a time or 3.


Actually, you did not. You threw out some irrelevant historical events and forgot that some other crap she was involves with took place during her husband's Presidency.

Now please educate everyone on how the Secretary of State gives orders to the Attorney General or the President.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: onequestion

Why would the State Department block an investigation?



Why would the IRS target political opponents on Obama and Hillary ?

Why would the Justice department fail to indict Hillary for grave classified information violations?

Why would Hillary not be charged for bribery for accepting millions in "donations" when she was SoS ?

It's a mystery.....



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Public Service Announcement!



Please discuss this topic in a civil manner...and Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

So, skip the personal attack, the bickering and the off topic material......You are responsible for your own posts.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: M5xaz
Why would the IRS target political opponents on Obama and Hillary ?


Because it came from above them, not laterally. The Internal Revenue Service answers to Treasury who answers to the President. I firmly believe tacit approval was given by Dear Leader for that fiasco.


Why would the Justice department fail to indict Hillary for grave classified information violations?


See above. Not from a lateral position.


Why would Hillary not be charged for bribery for accepting millions in "donations" when she was SoS ?

It's a mystery.....


Again, see above.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Seeing how you did not answer the questions again what was the point of that post?

You want to tell us all which Congressional agency does investigations and how they are conducted?



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join