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

James O'Keefe Deadmans Switch On: Hillary Will Be Implicated Monday Part III Project Veritas

page: 9
109
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
Why is it racist to demand a birth certificate from someone who in his college's material was listed as born in Kenya?


Another birther silly story, please show exactly where his birthplace was listed as Kenyan in material from his college....




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: hellobruce
Obama's BC was not forged, despite what some racists claim.


First off, I'm not claiming that Obama isn't a U.S. citizen, but in all fairness... the initial birth certificate released on the White House website was a forgery. Some idiot uploaded it without using "flatten image" and the layers were clearly editable when opened up in program like Adobe Illustrator.

I'll never understand why the White House added so much fuel to the "birther" fire by releasing such a ridiculous file.

Also note that this post has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with some negligent/prankster staffer, and with how programs like Adobe Illustrator function. You simply don't get editable layers like that with an authentic scan/photocopy.


That is absolutely correct. I don't care what anyone says that birth certificate that was released is Fake. Anybody that truly looked into it knows that, including Trump. Unfortunately everyone just calls you a crazy racist without looking at the evidence so it is a lost cause to even argue.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Considering the majority of lawyers agree he shouldn't release his taxes while under audit I'm sure he doesn't care how you feel.

source



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: SudoNim

How is it beyond proven, where's the proof?


Two of Hillary's operatives were selling the story in 08.
They shopped the story with news outlets, one who went
on record and wrote about it.


Two supporters of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign reportedly shared the claim that then-rival Barack Obama was not born in the United States and thus was not eligible to be president.

One was a volunteer in Iowa, who was fired, Clinton’s former campaign manager said Friday. The other was Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, according to a former McClatchy Washington Bureau chief.


www.mcclatchydc.com...





You are aware that it is beyond proven that Hillary Clinton and her campaign in 2008 were the ones who started the Birther story to begin with, to spread fear and paranoia?


From your link....




In fact, there were several people publicly pushing the theory, which was repeated extensively on conservative news outlets. There were the two Clinton supporters, but there is no evidence that Clinton herself or her campaign spread the story.




edit on 23-10-2016 by Connector because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo

Layers can be caused when using a scanning program that does OCR. Sections that are hand written especially will appear to be a layer. His birth certificate is authentic.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Connector

The story was pushed by Sidney Bluementhal, who was
and still is on a Clinton payroll. LOL....

No "evidence"...its not a court trial...



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Connector

The story was pushed by Sidney Bluementhal, who was
and still is on a Clinton payroll. LOL....

No "evidence"...its not a court trial...


You said Hillary was involved in the birther debacle and provided a link to support your position. Your link states the opposite. Why would you provide a link that contradicts your assertion?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko



Considering the majority of lawyers agree he shouldn't release his taxes while under audit I'm sure he doesn't care how you feel.

His returns are, in the words of his attorney, "under continuous examination". That is not an audit. And, going by the attorneys' letter they will always be under examination.

So, as expected, Trump will never release his returns. Contrary to his claims.






edit on 10/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: schuyler




He also said that he has been advised by counsel to not release returns when they are still under audit. Trump is audited EVERY YEAR and they are ongoing, i.e.: Not timely concluded within a year.

Actually, according to the letter from his attorneys, his returns have been under examination. While an audit can be considered an examination, it is a very specific term. One which his attorney did not use.
finance.zacks.com...



I don't know if you have ever found yourself in a position where you had tBut io retain an attorney, but if you do so you pretty much are obligated to do what they say,
Trump has attorneys on retainer. He needs to because he likes to sue people. The claim that an "audit" is a reason to not release his tax returns (as he repeatedly said he would) is specious.


Once again we have entered the realm of pedantry. "Under examination" is not "audit". OK, Phage. It must make a world of difference--or not. to me, either phrase would strike fear into my heart. But it's really a moot point. It's not illegal to NOT release your tax returns. It's not illegal to NOT release the text of your speeches to bankers. both sides can fume about this to their hearts' content.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




It's not illegal to NOT release your tax returns.

I know.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler




It must make a world of difference--or not. to me, either phrase would strike fear into my heart.

You may well have had a return or two examined. As may I have.

edit on 10/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Connector


You said Hillary was involved in the birther debacle and provided a link to support your position. Your link states the opposite. Why would you provide a link that contradicts your assertion?


Dot 1. Hillary Clinton pays Sidney Blumenthal.
Dot 2. Blumenthal pushed the birther issue according to first hand witness.

Dot 3. News from the day, Chris Matthews calls Hillary Clinton on claiming
Obama was born in Indonesia.




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Connector


You said Hillary was involved in the birther debacle and provided a link to support your position. Your link states the opposite. Why would you provide a link that contradicts your assertion?


Dot 1. Hillary Clinton pays Sidney Blumenthal.
Dot 2. Blumenthal pushed the birther issue according to first hand witness.

Dot 3. News from the day, Chris Matthews calls Hillary Clinton on claiming
Obama was born in Indonesia.





lol

I haven't commented one way or the other if Hillary was involved and have no doubt that she/Bill/Clinton juggernaut could be with just enough degrees of separation to be "clean".

You still don't understand do you? You made an assertion and provided a link that contradicts that assertion. You literally de-bunked your own statement. That is my point. And now why do you provide a video about BO being born in Indonesia when your other posts say Kenya. See what I'm getting at......



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Connector

That is my point. And now why do you provide a video about BO being born in Indonesia when your other posts say Kenya. See what I'm getting at......



Yes, I see your trying to create something to argue about,
and not much more.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

I believe a "deadman's switch" means it is already in the system and already planned with a time and means to go off whether he attempts to stop it or not-nothing, including his death can stop it from going out.

It means it's too late to even stop it-locked, loaded with a timer to explode the info as directed.

I hope so.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Under Examination is the Legal term for an audit, I'm surprised you didn't research that.

Tax Examination (audit)

You've obviously never gotten that dreaded letter of Examination.
edit on 23-10-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
An audit is, indeed an examination.
However, an examination is not necessarily an audit. An audit is a particular type of examination. The letter does not specify an audit.
Your source:

The interview may be at an IRS office (office audit) or at the taxpayer's home, place of business, or accountant's office (field audit).




Chapter 4 of the "IRS Manual," "Examining Process," includes processes for examining tax returns to select which ones should be audited. It also includes guidelines for auditors when examining information during an actual audit. The IRS manual also uses the term "tax examination" along with other words to instruct employees on procedures for specific activities. Terms such as "gift tax examination" and "employment tax examination" are commonly found.

finance.zacks.com...

Here is Chapter 4:
www.irs.gov...

edit on 10/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You know full well you are referring the the portion of the Examination being done to determine whether to move forward with an audit. The person or business would never know that is being done. They only way they would know they were being examined is if they had been notified of an audit (via a letter of Examination).

Are you being obtuse intentionally?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




Are you being obtuse intentionally?


No.
I am aware that attorneys are usually very careful in their wording. I am aware that they did not say there was an audit being conducted. I am aware that Trump did. I am aware that Trump is not careful with his wording.

edit on 10/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Then, phage, you must have been furious with Hillary, when under legal request Hillary didn't comply and deleted her emails.
edit on 23-10-2016 by thepixelpusher because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join