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.

 

The President Lied To The American People Again. When Will Enough Be Enough?

page: 15
93
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FamCore
Do you seriously think if any other candidate were elected it would be a different story, with 100% unfiltered pure honesty and transparency? Do you live under a rock?

I seriously. Let me repeat, SERIOUSLY think that if we had elected literally anyone else that they wouldn't have written a late night tweet accusing the previous President of wiretapping him.


...to paraphrase (because it was too much to remember)...I have no illegal server, I never used the server (I never had) to send receive classified information, no one received classified information from my illegal server (I don't have) ... all from you know who.

Who #ing cares? Hillary isn't the President.


I don't think Hillary can be ruled out as a suspect for the leaks, just because she is not President. Her previous demonstrations of dishonesty are important. In that respect, the FBI might care.

BUWHAHAHAHA! Oh wait you were serious. Now I'm laughing even harder. The idea that someone is guilty of a crime because you think they are dishonest has got to be the dumbest thing I've read on the internet. Today.
edit on 21-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Lol, you poor leftists get sucked in every time. Comey didn't reveal anything new. All he did was repeat what obama said in different terms. That doesn't mean Trump wasn't wiretapped and it doesn't mean that Obama didn't receive reports on it. All it means is that they don't have evidence, in hand, that proves obama ordered a wiretap on Trump.

Further, if you watched much of the hearing rather than just the highlights, you'd know that Comey was trying (and did very well) the entire time not to provide any information (which is what he should be doing in this situation).

Comey also made reference to the FISA warrants for trump tower, so how exactly do you square that with there being no wiretap?
edit on 21-3-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Lab4Us

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: FamCore
Do you seriously think if any other candidate were elected it would be a different story, with 100% unfiltered pure honesty and transparency? Do you live under a rock?

I seriously. Let me repeat, SERIOUSLY think that if we had elected literally anyone else that they wouldn't have written a late night tweet accusing the previous President of wiretapping him.


...to paraphrase (because it was too much to remember)...I have no illegal server, I never used the server (I never had) to send receive classified information, no one received classified information from my illegal server (I don't have) ... all from you know who.

Who #ing cares? Hillary isn't the President.


I don't think Hillary can be ruled out as a suspect for the leaks, just because she is not President. Her previous demonstrations of dishonesty are important. In that respect, the FBI might care.

BUWHAHAHAHA! Oh wait you were serious. Now I'm laughing even harder. The idea that someone is guilty of a crime because you think they are dishonest has got to be the dumbest thing I've read on the internet. Today.


Somebody handled classified information, leaked it to the press, and in the process committed a crime.
The motive appears to be to undermine President Trump.
Why would any sane person rule out Hillary Clinton in an investigation, especially as she has a history of mishandling classified information?
Just because she lost to Donald Trump, doesn't mean she can't still play a role to undermine.
Given you willingness to write off people who committed the same crime in the past, I am pleased you have no influence in any investigations.
edit on 21/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Because intelligent people all know that Hillary wouldn't have access to the information being leaked at the times they were leaked. Apparently you think Hillary is some supervillian capable of feats that surpass our understanding of physics.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I think Hillary received classified info on it, but she didn't leak it. She got others to do that. That's the clinton MO.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

Because intelligent people all know that Hillary wouldn't have access to the information being leaked at the times they were leaked. Apparently you think Hillary is some supervillian capable of feats that surpass our understanding of physics.


It's not only the people who had access to the information, it is also the people they shared it with that is important, and who passed it to the press.
I would have thought that was fairly obvious.
We don't have answers to those questions, so why in the world would anyone investigating rule out a person with a history of mishandling classified information AND with a motive to undermine the President?

I am glad the 'intelligent' people you hang around with are not running investigations. Intelligent people actually do know that it is physically possible for one person to pass information to another. Maybe your understanding of physics is a bit off.

edit on 21/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

If someone passed that information onto Hillary then that would be them leaking it to her. What part of her not having access to this information do you not understand?


We don't have answers to those questions, so why in the world would anyone investigating rule out a person with a history of mishandling classified information AND with a motive to undermine the President.

This is like blaming OJ Simpson for every murder committed in the states just because he committed a murder. Ridiculous and fallacious. Not to mention baseless.


I am glad the 'intelligent' people you hang around with are not running investigations.

Good thing the people who ARE running investigations aren't going to be investigating Hillary Clinton over this because they understand what I do and that there is no evidence or basis for these allegations.
edit on 21-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Comey made it very clear many times that the investigation was ongoing and he couldn't offer specifics on the investigation for risk of jeopardizing the investigation.

How would you like it if somebody suspected you of something erroneously or not, yet offered information regarding the investigation of you that made you appear guiltier than you are, or if the investigation made you look innocent when you were actually guilty of the infraction you were being investigated for?.

On one hand you may be utterly destroyed, on the other you may be unjustly vindicated, just because someone talked about an active investigation.

What we witnessed in the hearing was due process and preservation of due process of those being investigated.

Nobody is covering for anyone, nobody is necessarily lying...

Questions were not answered in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation either way.

It is ongoing.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: MyHappyDogShiner

Exactly. That's exactly what happened. That's why I'm laughing at all of the headlines and flipping out dimms that believe comey proved one side correct and the other incorrect. He did nothing of the sort. It was a giant blah sandwich.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UKTruth

If someone passed that information onto Hillary then that would be them leaking it to her. What part of her not having access to this information do you not understand?


We don't have answers to those questions, so why in the world would anyone investigating rule out a person with a history of mishandling classified information AND with a motive to undermine the President.

This is like blaming OJ Simpson for every murder committed in the states just because he committed a murder. Ridiculous and fallacious. Not to mention baseless.


I am glad the 'intelligent' people you hang around with are not running investigations.

Good thing the people who ARE running investigations aren't going to be investigating Hillary Clinton over this because they understand what I do and that there is no evidence or basis for these allegations.


Who blamed Hillary? You are becoming somewhat defensive.
That is not how investigations work. You don't need evidence to suspect someone - you rule out suspects based on evidence.

What part of mishandling classified information and leaking it to the press do you not understand?
That is also a crime.
The stages the information may have passed through to reach the Washington Post is unknown.

With the information we have today there is no valid reason to rule out Clinton as being involved.

Your OJ Simpson example is nonsense. What ties does he have to every murder victim the country?
Hillary Clinton is a member of the opposition political party, ran against Trump, has been caught mishandling classified information, used information relating to the investigation whilst it was happening during her campaign, is a known enemy of Trump (by her own words), and has publicly made statements that show she does not want him as President. She is in the thick of it.


edit on 21/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're both being obtuse. Hillary is likely a suspect, but not a top suspect, for the reasons that krazyshot is saying she shouldn't be a suspect. But she's likely a suspect because she did have the information (as proved by her october 29th campaign letter) and she does have a history of disregard for classified info and dishonesty, like UK Truth says.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

A giant "blah sandwich" to preserve the integrity of the investigation, and preserve the rights of those being investigated.

Of course in this "Jerry Springer Show" like world, every ignoramus watching it wanted a bit more "drama".

Hopefully our "Reality Show" president doesn't try to change the legal process into something resembling the nonsense spewed at those rallies during the campaign.

People will lose interest in the "Blah Sandwich" pretty quick, I wonder what it will be next that sweeps away their attention?.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The one thing comey DID confirm was that 90% of the stuff that is supposedly leaked is false, and they don't bother correcting the falsehoods.

Which only supports the "fake news" meme.

And I think he said he wasn't made of steel, and needed to urinate after 4 hours. But beyond that, it was all "no comment"



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Who blamed Hillary? You are becoming somewhat defensive.

Um... You did. I didn't even want to talk about her until you baselessly accused her of leaking information that she would never have access too.

That is not how investigations work. You don't need evidence to suspect someone - you rule out suspects based on evidence.

You don't know how investigations work either if you think that a partisan attack on a politican counts as reasonable suspicion. Common sense rules Hillary Clinton as being uninvolved in these leaks out immediately. After all, why would Donald Trump and his administration be willingly sharing information to Hillary Clinton in order to leak them to the press? It's just a ridiculous line of thought all so you can continue to demonize the lady.


What part of mishandling classified information and leaking it to the press do you not understand?
That is also a crime.
The stages the information may have passed through to reach the Washington Post is unknown.

I don't see her indicted for anything.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're both being obtuse. Hillary is likely a suspect, but not a top suspect, for the reasons that krazyshot is saying she shouldn't be a suspect. But she's likely a suspect because she did have the information (as proved by her october 29th campaign letter) and she does have a history of disregard for classified info and dishonesty, like UK Truth says.


I would think she is unlikely to be a top suspect, but at this stage, a suspect nonetheless.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're both being obtuse. Hillary is likely a suspect, but not a top suspect, for the reasons that krazyshot is saying she shouldn't be a suspect. But she's likely a suspect because she did have the information (as proved by her october 29th campaign letter) and she does have a history of disregard for classified info and dishonesty, like UK Truth says.

How could Hillary Clinton have access to Trump's internal memos and meetings without that info being leaked to her first? There is literally zero reason to suspect Clinton for the leaks. Outside of partisan bias that is.
edit on 21-3-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Wow
What would one call it when a sitting admin orders an investigation into the opposing parties campaign?
Especially one that has been ongoing for 8 months and multiple investigative officials have made statements that there is no evidence of a crime?



You don't know how investigations work either if you think that a partisan attack on a politican counts as reasonable suspicion.


You sir win the internet for today!



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: UKTruth
Who blamed Hillary? You are becoming somewhat defensive.

Um... You did. I didn't even want to talk about her until you baselessly accused her of leaking information that she would never have access too.

That is not how investigations work. You don't need evidence to suspect someone - you rule out suspects based on evidence.

You don't know how investigations work either if you think that a partisan attack on a politican counts as reasonable suspicion. Common sense rules Hillary Clinton as being uninvolved in these leaks out immediately. After all, why would Donald Trump and his administration be willingly sharing information to Hillary Clinton in order to leak them to the press? It's just a ridiculous line of thought all so you can continue to demonize the lady.


What part of mishandling classified information and leaking it to the press do you not understand?
That is also a crime.
The stages the information may have passed through to reach the Washington Post is unknown.

I don't see her indicted for anything.


Wrong. I did not blame Hillary. I said she is a suspect. You need to stop over reacting.

Common sense does not rule her out, that is just a blanket statement with no basis in fact. Your thought process that Donald Trump's administration would not share information with Hillary underlines that are not actually following the leaks which are happening. Case in point - using your flawed logic - Why would Donald Trump's administration leak information to the press about Flynn's call with Kislyak?

She was not indicted for anything, but Comey was clear she mishandled classified information. That is a fact. They decided not to indict her for it.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're both being obtuse. Hillary is likely a suspect, but not a top suspect, for the reasons that krazyshot is saying she shouldn't be a suspect. But she's likely a suspect because she did have the information (as proved by her october 29th campaign letter) and she does have a history of disregard for classified info and dishonesty, like UK Truth says.

How could Hillary Clinton have access to Trump's internal memos and meetings without that info being leaked to her first? There is literally zero reason to suspect Clinton for the leaks. Outside of partisan bias that is.


Yes, they could have been leaked to her first. She could have then illegally handled information by passing it on to the press. Let's also remember that she was receiving intelligence briefings whilst the investigation was ongoing - from the Summer of 2016 all the way through to November.

Laughing at the idea she could be involved is ,well, laughable.
edit on 21/3/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Wrong. I did not blame Hillary. I said she is a suspect. You need to stop over reacting.

Now you are being obtuse.


Common sense does not rule her out, that is just a blanket statement with no basis in fact. Your thought process that Donald Trump's administration would not share information with Hillary underlines that are not actually following the leaks which are happening. Case in point - using your flawed logic - Why would Donald Trump's administration leak information to the press about Flynn's call with Kislyak?

Your entire theory is a blanket statement without a basis in fact.


She was not indicted for anything, but Comey was clear she mishandled classified information. That is a fact. They decided not to indict her for it.

Yep. So that is something you'll have to come to terms with eventually. She isn't going to go to jail.



new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join