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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Wikileaks 7 Just Released

page: 5
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



You don't know who I am? I'm the guy who just handed two absentee ballots to the mailman.


My wife filled out the second so don't get any more worked up. I'm also employed so I think I can afford fifty bucks
toward the cause.

edit on 14-10-2016 by ezramullins because: health concern of others




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: liammc

Double standards or what eh?


It's called track record.

You're supposed to believe Trump speculation, because it's more often been true.

Like him saying the N-word. It's probably true. On a more general level a lot of ignorant people have said that word though. Obama's said it, I've said it in the midst of jokes. A lot of people have said it. What's particularly funny, is if you say Trumps has said it however, the true lapdogs come out and defend their lords honor.


We'll see.
Video of Hillary angrily yelling at a woman and using the 'N' word is supposed to come out soon from wikileaks---1 OF 6 new videos apparently joining the emails.



You can say whatever you want about ''lapdogs". That doesn't even exist in the Democratic party. You need to understand what gangstalking and mob-mentality type fronts are to grasp the way your party spreads information like a Dark Horse.

No faster could you change 'Redneck' from something derogatory to say, to something patriotic and meaningful to say, as could you justify a Church and State UNION, as opposed to Separation, and no sooner would this country spiral down in endless hypocrisy, and it matter to idiots more most.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
Damaging evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign and the media, this time Associated Press's Lisa Lerer:




Reviving this thread because AP is working on a story similar to Pat Healy's article in Sunday's NYT about HRC's "Wall Street image problem." The reporter, Lisa Lerer, plans specifically to note that her paid speeches to banks were closed-press affairs, and transcripts are not available. She is asking if we wish to characterize her remarks in any way.

I think we could come up with a vanilla characterization that challenges the idea that she sucked up to these folks in her appearances, but then use AP's raising of this to our advantage to pitch someone to do an exclusive by providing at least the key excerpts from this Deutsche Bank speech. In doing so, we could have the reporting be sourced to a "transcript obtained by [news outlet]" so it is not confirmed as us selectively providing one transcript while refusing to share others.


Email 8086



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Hillary's people massaging the FAQs put out on her website that she is always pointing people to with which to 'fact check,' claims:


1) As to the server turn over, I think we decided to say something like "the server that was used during her tenure as Secretary of State."

2) I would prefer not to use the "March 18, 2009" date, because we know there were other emails using the her clintonemail.com address prior to that date. Could we make this more vague, like "early in her term as SOS"? Or would this change provide a "gotcha" target--if so, not worth it, since this is the date of the earliest email in the PST of her emails, as I understand it.


/podesta-emails/emailid/9190



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: eluryh22
a reply to: IAMTAT

It's NOT bad news for Hillary because the major networks and talking heads and late night shows won't mention any of it.... not once.... not ever.



originally posted by: kruphix

There hasn't been anything worthwhile to mention.

Honestly...what has Wikileaks released in the past week that is worth talking about?


Exactly, it's not like there has been a complete top to bottom whitewashing of the entire election process being exposed.




posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: liammc

First off, I don't recall accusing Trump of anything. In fact all I've done about these recent controversies is read the ongoing developments. I haven't made any judgements on if they are true or not. My biases certainly say they are, but at this time it's still their word against Trumps. So I'm still just waiting and seeing.

That's a little insight into my deductive reasoning. Though clearly you think that me just reading about something is me "lapping it up" and believing it.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ezramullins

Congratulations. Have fun with that.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




First off, I don't recall accusing Trump of anything. In fact all I've done about these recent controversies is read the ongoing developments. I haven't made any judgements on if they are true or not. My biases certainly say they are, but at this time it's still their word against Trumps. So I'm still just waiting and seeing.


Good man.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
Trump supporters are such a great moral people who care deeply about all that is good and right. Champions of character and decency.

Keep looking through those emails. And always stay vigilant against the Blacks and the Mexicans and the Muslims and the Women.



Your quite redundant...

Polly want a cracker?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LSU0408




Don't be silly. You know that saying "grab em by the p*ssy" 11 years ago is much more of an issue than any of that.



LOL , exactly and more appalling than a married man sticking cigars in the p*ssy of an intern in the White House serving as POTUS.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you aren't here to add to the topic, please leave.

Reading this thread, makes you look horribly blind.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Clearly you DON'T think they are the boy who cried wolf

Not true , like I said I have called them out on their BS , fear mongering and as recent as the whole Hillary health thing. Besides that its irrelevant if they cried wolf in the past.




Common sense isn't evidence of wrongdoing no matter how hard you try to make it.


The FBI never said their wasn't evidence of wrong doing, they said that their was no evidence of INTENT . However, I'm claiming that if you look at this whole email debacle their is enough evidence to suggest there is more to the story and worthy of continued scrutiny. Unlike your claim that everyone , but the right is tired of it.




Must you insult my intelligence like this?

I'm not insulting your intelligence. Actually I agree with alot of what you typically say and I think you are pretty smart guy , but I think your bias sometimes gets the better of you.





Got any proof to say it was anything else besides your biases?


What bias would that be? I think both Clinton and Trump are scum , will likely not vote for neither one and call out both their BS. The proof is that anyone with a near average intelligence can tell there is more to this story than what is being told , on the points I made above.




I care about what can be proven in a court of law not what the court of public opinion thinks on a matter.


I don't believe you are a judge,lawyer, or jury nor are we prosecuting this case , are we? So we are not prosecuting under the court of law , right?

We are prosecuting under the premise of a potential POTUS candidate on honesty,integrity,morals,ethics,conflict of interest,accomplishments,history and the best interest of the people. Clinton fails on all those counts miserably.




you want to change my mind you need to present evidence and stop trying to appeal to my "common sense".

Not looking to change your mind , plus common sense says no matter what you likely won't





It's a shame that your standards are so low that you do that though.


Lol , that is Golden coming from someone who is trying to justify Hillary Clinton as a worthy presidential candidate.

edit on 121031America/ChicagoFri, 14 Oct 2016 14:12:56 -0500000000p3142 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Currently trending #1 and #4 on Twitter.


As a non-Twitter user, can someone please inform me where I can go look at what are the top ten trends on Twitter so I can see this for myself? I'm not doubting the claim, I'm personally curious and would like to see this on a daily basis. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   


But even if Sid is right and some of these documents were at some point sent to Clinton, there is nothing in any of these emails that is remotely new or interesting. Indeed, none of these 16 emails are qualitatively different than the dozens of others that Hillary already produced to the State Department. So it is completely ridiculous to suggest that there might have been any nefarious basis for her to want to delete any of Sid's correspondence.

Source : podesta-emails/emailid/9272


Reminder :



Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

Source : 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally


Technically, she's game over already ...



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Not true , like I said I have called them out on their BS , fear mongering and as recent as the whole Hillary health thing. Besides that its irrelevant if they cried wolf in the past.

It's always relevant if their credibility is shot because they always cry wolf for everything. It makes me even MORE suspicious of their claims now.


The FBI never said their wasn't evidence of wrong doing, they said that their was no evidence of INTENT . However, I'm claiming that if you look at this whole email debacle their is enough evidence to suggest there is more to the story and worthy of continued scrutiny. Unlike your claim that everyone , but the right is tired of it.

Maybe, but until I see some physical evidence I'm not worried about it. Speculation goes nowhere in a court of law.


I don't believe you are a judge,lawyer, or jury nor are we prosecuting this case , are we? So we are not prosecuting under the court of law , right?

We are prosecuting under the premise of a potential POTUS candidate on honesty,integrity,morals,ethics,conflict of interest,accomplishments,history and the best interest of the people. Clinton fails on all those counts miserably.

Really? The way I read some people's posts its like she is already in a court and we are the arbiters of it. As far as "prosecuting under the premise of a potential POTUS candidate" as you say, I say that whatever her transgressions may or may not be that they are overshadowed by Trump's proven (by his own words and actions) incompetence. I am willing to concede Hillary's indiscretions for the next 4 years so that liberal policies can be implemented easier.

But I'm not willing to listen to people yelling about her emails over and over without actual evidence of wrong doing. If you suspect that things are being hidden from you, then find out what they are. Because lord knows, speculating is never going to get you anywhere close to the truth of the matter.



Not looking to change your mind , plus common sense says no matter what you likely won't

You don't have to believe me but I DO change my opinions if presented evidence that I cannot refute. I've done it many times on ATS too. Read some of my older threads and you'll see that my opinions were vastly different in 2012 than they are now.


Lol , that is Golden coming from someone who is trying to justify Hillary Clinton as a worthy presidential candidate.

"Worthy" is subjective. When the choices are a con man, hillary, and two candidates who can't even poll high enough to get national funding and appear in the debates then what is and isn't "worthy" to you must be compromised until you get a preferable candidate. Because no matter how you feel about any of those candidates, ONE will be the President.

A Hillary Presidency also brings more to the table than JUST her Presidency (and possible corruption). There are the SCOTUS nominations to consider for instance.

See while everyone is bickering over the candidates' characters I've been looking past that and analyzing all sorts of angles. I've decided that the best choice among the choices is Hillary. That will guarantee that at the least policies that I agree with are pushed if not implemented. Plus I see too much regressive nonsense in the Republican platform. I don't want to see Obamacare repealed (I'm not crazy about the law but I'd rather see it fixed to make work than altogether repealed and making the healthcare situation a thousand times worse than it already is). I agree with Climate Change. I KNOW for a fact that Trump and the Republican party don't stand for things like this.

Though thanks for putting me on trial about my choice... I SOOO love having to explain to the haters who doubt my integrity why I want to vote for Hillary. Especially the ones who do it while also talking about how they usually respect and agree with my opinion.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Why would someone be coming to John Podesta to:


help me and my two partners get an audience with Valerie Jarrett so we can talk through harnessing the business community on this?


/podesta-emails/emailid/9391

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for whomever this is to reach out directly to the Justice Department to try and arrange a meeting with the Attorney General of the United States?

Is Podesta so cozy with the AG that other people feel it to their advantage to seek his help in arranging, "an audience," (which, btw, doesn't that sound like they're giving VJ somewhat elevated status and sees them as royalty?) with the head of the Department of Justice?

I don't know, maybe this is no big deal.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DrStevenBrule
a reply to: kruphix

Ohh I don't know.... maybe something like what is being discussed in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


There are those who are still pretending there is 'nothing to see here'.
But, the word is getting out. The accumulation of all this information has made it difficult for Clinton to hide and she's put herself on the back foot and been caught lying. So much so she has been ordered to answer written questions under threat of perjury, just recently (earlier today I think). She will have to answer truthfully now or risk any lie being exposed and her getting indicted for perjury.

Every step she takes relating to the last several years is now going to be a dangerous one for her as she knows her secrets may have been compromised.
edit on 14/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: liammc

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: liammc

Double standards or what eh?


It's called track record.

You're supposed to believe Trump speculation, because it's more often been true.

Like him saying the N-word. It's probably true. On a more general level a lot of ignorant people have said that word though.
Clinton has a good track record?


No. But you're not supposed to inspect them individually. You compare track records side by side.

Most of Clintons scandals have been false. This is why it's not intuitive to believe the same sources about new scandals.

Like Trump saying the N-word. It's probably true. On a more general level a lot of ignorant people have said that word though. Obama's said it, I've said it in the midst of jokes. A lot of people have said it. What's particularly funny, is if you say Trumps has said it however, the true lapdogs come out and defend their lords honor, when it all likelihood, he's said it too.


Which scandals have been false? And nobody defends Trump for the accusations of him saying the n word. People call out the hypocrisy of it because those outraged at him have said it too. It's not a forbidden word, and I can guarantee you the Clinton's have their fair share of saying it behind closed doors. It'd be foolish to think different. However, I have no problem with them saying it, nor with Trump saying it. I have a problem with the hypocrisy of only wanting to bash Trump for it IF he is even recorded saying it.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: LSU0408




Don't be silly. You know that saying "grab em by the p*ssy" 11 years ago is much more of an issue than any of that.



LOL , exactly and more appalling than a married man sticking cigars in the p*ssy of an intern in the White House serving as POTUS.


HA! Ol Slick and the cigar... But that's ok too. Bacuz demacraht



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ameilia

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Currently trending #1 and #4 on Twitter.


As a non-Twitter user, can someone please inform me where I can go look at what are the top ten trends on Twitter so I can see this for myself? I'm not doubting the claim, I'm personally curious and would like to see this on a daily basis. Thanks.


You should create an account. It's better than facebook because you can keep up with whoever you want to, and nobody you don't.




top topics



 
57
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join