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.

 

BREAKING! Proof That Benghazi Was Preventable?

page: 4
140
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler


If you go to Eichenwald's article, there's of course more detail about it but to save you the time, they presented it as though it was Syndney Blumenthal saying it to Hillary Clinton. In other words, the same thing that Trump was doing.



First, let me just congratulate you on a good thread. I may be currently voting for Trump, but I will be damned if that lets me ignore the carppy things he does, and no matter how this story comes out it makes him look at least dumb and willing to peddle garbage without fact checking it.

Now on to the substance;

I read the Eichenwald article and I know Sputinik calimed he said this. My question is twofold;

1. Was the email sputnik was refernicing an authentic wikileak email, or did they just post bs and claim it was?

2. If it was a wikileak email, what exactly did it say. If it said something like Blumenthal saying ""The newsweek article today really helped us. we should take heed though that it did say that Benghazu was preventable..."

In other words, Blumenthal was intentional quooting Eichenwald in the article, and Sputnik just made it seem like his eichenwald quote was his.

Or...

Did the email just flatout claim Blutmenthal was not quoting anything, and he said this. I am having a hard time explaining this, but let me tell you why number two would be damning.

This would prove that at least some of the wikileaks are forgeries. Now if Sputnik just atributed a quote in the emails to Blumenthal, the leaked email could still be legut, it jsut doesn't say what Trump was claiming it did.

But if it is a complete forgery, then this cast doubt on all of the leaked documents.




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Alien Abduct




How do you propose it would turn out after four years if Trump was elected as apposed to Hillary?

My crystal ball broke.
But I've learned from experience that no President has been shown to be either disaster or savior. Trump claims to the latter. That, and he being who he is, invokes dread.


I agree it's an issue that needs to be addressed by voting in good people from the very bottom all the way to the very top. But what happens when the top is so corrupted? The top is what makes very important nationalistic decisions, nation to nation, war or not war.

You didn't answer all of my questions.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
For some reason, I feel his supporters don't even have the intelligence to even comprehend this revelation.

Wave the yellow foam fingers...go Trump!


There go your feelings again. They are always right, aren't they?

Trump has a staff 1/10th the size of Hilary's political machine. But even she cites articles in her campaign against Pepe, in which the author was duped by trolls. The article is still on her website even a month after.



posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The conclusion part.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

LOL. Context right? That's why you excerpted that little piece?


So Blumenthal writes a quote. This just came out a little while ago. I have to tell you this.

"One important point has been universally acknowledged by the nine previous reports about Benghazi" — this is Syndey Blumenthal — the only one she was talking to. She wasn't talking to Ambassador Stevens. Even the 600 calls — probably desperation!

"The attack wasn't almost certainly preventable." Benghazi. "Clinton was in charge of the State Department and had failed to protect the United States personnel at an American consulate in Libya" He meant Benghazi. "If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate."

In other words he's now admitted that they could have done something about Benghazi. This just came out a little while ago...


I realize that he's basically incomprehensible to read. Almost without exception, Trump speaks in simple sentences (those that contain a single clause) and sentence fragments. However, it's abundantly clear from the context that I've bolded for you that he's saying that those were "Sleazy Syndney's" words.

I'll give you a C for effort. (not to be mistaken with the C for "colored" or the one for "confidential"). You did try and you know how we liberals love us some participation trophies, amirite?

However, what Donald the Persuadable was saying was doing was indicating that he was going to read quotes from the email.


This belongs in the HOAX bin.


Thanks. Reading those words from you really puts a smile on my face. Thank you, thank you, thank you!



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It's Eichenwald's entire article copy and pasted in an email from blumenthal to "undisclosed recipients"

The subject is "The Truth..."

The problem is, the article, though it states the concern that Benghazi was preventable is legitimate, it goes on to criticize the Republicans for politicizing it.

Source



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: olaru12
For some reason, I feel his supporters don't even have the intelligence to even comprehend this revelation.

Wave the yellow foam fingers...go Trump!


There go your feelings again. They are always right, aren't they?

Trump has a staff 1/10th the size of Hilary's political machine. But even she cites articles in her campaign against Pepe, in which the author was duped by trolls. The article is still on her website even a month after.


Devastated because your guy had feet of clay and a brain to match? Take it out on me if it makes you feel better.

I'm not a Clinton supporter.
edit on 11-10-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Alien Abduct


But what happens when the top is so corrupted?

What has been happening.

I loathe Trump. I think he is a self centered fool who has no interest in anything but his own. I think he has no qualification for the Presidency.

Hillary cannot destroy the country, nor can Trump.

But Trump has indeed rattled the Republican party. I can thank him for that. Who knows, maybe the word moderate may become less of an epithet because of him.






edit on 10/11/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Or maybe the Russians hadn't counted on Mr. Eichenwald recognizing his own writing. What Trump waved around and expounded on and whipped up his followers with certainly put Hillary in a bad light. The lie got halfway around the world, but Truth quickly put its pants on.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I'm not taking it out on you. I'm making an argument.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TinfoilTP

LOL. Context right? That's why you excerpted that little piece?


So Blumenthal writes a quote. This just came out a little while ago. I have to tell you this.

"One important point has been universally acknowledged by the nine previous reports about Benghazi" — this is Syndey Blumenthal — the only one she was talking to. She wasn't talking to Ambassador Stevens. Even the 600 calls — probably desperation!

"The attack wasn't almost certainly preventable." Benghazi. "Clinton was in charge of the State Department and had failed to protect the United States personnel at an American consulate in Libya" He meant Benghazi. "If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate."

In other words he's now admitted that they could have done something about Benghazi. This just came out a little while ago...


I realize that he's basically incomprehensible to read. Almost without exception, Trump speaks in simple sentences (those that contain a single clause) and sentence fragments. However, it's abundantly clear from the context that I've bolded for you that he's saying that those were "Sleazy Syndney's" words.

I'll give you a C for effort. (not to be mistaken with the C for "colored" or the one for "confidential"). You did try and you know how we liberals love us some participation trophies, amirite?

However, what Donald the Persuadable was saying was doing was indicating that he was going to read quotes from the email.


This belongs in the HOAX bin.


Thanks. Reading those words from you really puts a smile on my face. Thank you, thank you, thank you!


All Trump said was that Blumenthal was communicating with Hillary, with a quote.
"This is Blumenthal" means Blumenthal is still quoting so that the listeners do not mistake that it was Hillary.

In conclusion what you bolded was trump pointing out what Blumenthal was communicating, which was identified at the start of Trumps speech as a quote from someone else.

Hoax all day long



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler

It's Eichenwald's entire article copy and pasted in an email from blumenthal to "undisclosed recipients"

The subject is "The Truth..."

The problem is, the article, though it states the concern that Benghazi was preventable is legitimate, it goes on to criticize the Republicans for politicizing it.

Source



Ah thank you. So It was just that sputnik claimed that this was Blumenthals words, and not that a wikileaks document may have been forged.

Still, not a good look for Trump.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
Does it not raise the question:
How many of the other leaked items have been taken at face value as reported?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It was probably just handed to him. But it gives fire to the Russians are influencing the candidacy angle if Sputnik was involved.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Here's the cached copy of the Sputnik story that was later deleted:



full size



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler

It's Eichenwald's entire article copy and pasted in an email from blumenthal to "undisclosed recipients"

The subject is "The Truth..."

The problem is, the article, though it states the concern that Benghazi was preventable is legitimate, it goes on to criticize the Republicans for politicizing it.

Source



Ah thank you. So It was just that sputnik claimed that this was Blumenthals words, and not that a wikileaks document may have been forged.

Still, not a good look for Trump.


GO back and looke at the original post in this thread.
Look at the transcript of Trumps actual words.


Trump starts out the argument with, "So Blumenthal writes a quote"

This whole thread's premise falls apart after you realize what Trump actually said.

The real questions are why did Blumenthal communicate this quoted article, and why did Hillary over at SoS have communication of any kind with Blumenthal after promising Obama she wouldn't.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler
Does it not raise the question:
How many of the other leaked items have been taken at face value as reported?


Yes it does, you are absolutely right. That is why it is up to each individual not to take anything at face value, and look into themselves.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

That would seem to go without saying. Particularly in the case of someone running for the highest office in the land.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




But if it is a complete forgery, then this cast doubt on all of the leaked documents.


Which would cast doubt on Assange.

What I'm having a hard time doing is getting around the logic of how Russia can expect Trump to not get called out on hoax? You don't disseminate false hoods to get an upper hand during an election.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Speaking of candidates connections to bad regimes, I just made a thread showing Hillary knew Saudi was sponsoring Isis, yet still took there money and sent the podesta group to help cover it up. Thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now this in know way takes away from Trump and this story, but I think the Hillary connection is more troubling.

Even still, we seemed to be screwed.

But not to worry, I am 32. In four years I will be old enough to run for President, and I will be a candidate you can be proud of




new topics

top topics



 
140
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join