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.

 

WHO is Lying?: Jeh Johnson or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?

page: 2
27
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Christosterone
a reply to: theantediluvian

Atlantean,

How many times do I have to tell I do not speak millennial...
"Woke" is not in my vernacular...
And I don't appreciate needing to use urban dictionary to translate your every post...

-Chris

"Woke" is conspiracy theorist vernacular though.




posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
Video of Johnson's testimony.
I doubt there exists one of DWS, but clearly
The DNC refused to allow the server to be examined.

Gee I wonder why?
That said DWS is a woman with a lot to hide,
nefarious activity and many lies on record.


How many emails from Bill Clinton's wife to DWS directly requesting help with sabotaging the Bernie Sanders campaign were on those DNC servers?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   
DWS is picking a fight, she doesn't really want to be in.... I'm rather certain jeh is going through a stack of folders looking for "Wasserman.. Wasserman... Wasserman... Ah here it is...."



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Christosterone

You won't get an argument from me on that one. If you're trying to somehow impress me with calling either DWS or HRC a liar, you're not. I don't have a problem acknowledging when people lie. That seems to be more of a problem with the those supporting the absolute most prolific liar in the recent history of American politics.

If you want to impress me with how "woke" you are, wake up to the fact that Donald Trump lies more than those two and any dozen other politicians combined. Then explain why you seem to care so much about the lies from those two and not at all about the far larger body of lies from Trump.


Does everything devolve into a foaming at the mouth, anti-Trump rant with you?



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT


WHO is Lying?: Jeh Johnson or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz?


Well, DWS is affiliated with Hillary Clinton, so, just like we know the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, we know that DWS lies for a living - because Hillary is her mentor - and Hillary is the mother of all liars.

Don't know much about Johnson but he came across as competent and knowledgeable.

Anyway - I don't trust most politicians (especially 'career' politicians) - they should be injected with a truth serum because them placing their hand on the bible and having the public 'believe' their subsequent testimony is simply not good enough - because we are dealing with career liars.

Truth serum injections for all public servants who are required to front public (or private) hearings - enough is enough.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
Then explain why you seem to care so much about the lies from those two and not at all about the far larger body of lies from Trump.

Because Trump lies have such a high entertainment value. Whenever I see a stupid Trump tweet my first response is not "Trump is an idiot". It's how triggered will the leftists get over this. What you fail to realize is you all have brought this on yourself. People like myself have been dealing with the same BS from liberals from years. Told flat out lies about things like a gender wage gap, patriarchy, sexism, rape, discrimination, and oppression.

We have been having to eat the s*** liberals have been shoveling for years. Now it's your turn to see how it feels to be lied to and when you display some concern people just laugh at you.

So in that regard...



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
To answer the question. If surely say Wasserman Schultz because she couldn't care less about hacking unless it exposed DNC corruption.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Wasserman(I know noooothing) Schultz is a proven cheat so...



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Unless Debbie and Jeh met on a tarmac somewhere...it seems there would be some paper trail which would prove one side or the other was telling the truth.



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thought that was "awakened"...



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

There is a lot of context we have to have to make any conclusion. The FBI may have contacted the DNC about the issue, but never spoke to her personally about it.

In this case, they both could be correct.

Edit: Never mind. AD already brought that up.
edit on 22-6-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   


Here is Wasserman Schultz claiming categorically that she was not contacted and she says their technical team were left for almost a year with the 'russians on their system'. She refutes that the DNC rebuffed the IC's offer of help.

Either Comey and Johnson lied under oath or Wassermann Schultz is lying.

Given there is a clear lie somewhere here - the next question is why?

NOW we will see if Democrats are REALLY interested in getting to the bottom of this who Russia story or whether they are playing political games. There should be bi-partisan calls for DWS to testify under oath and a full investigation into the circumstances of the IC offers to help and also the refusal to release the server for the FBI investigation.
edit on 22/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Astute, I was noticing the same thing.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: theantediluvian

Astute, I was noticing the same thing.


The thing that somewhat undermines her 'defence' is that she also said categorically that the IC never offered help. It does not seem plausible that the IC would contact a lower level person to tell them they were being targeted and offering them help and it would not get to Wassermann Shultz. If she really didn't know then why is she being opaque about this... she just needs to say who was contacted and when and how it was communicated internally... she won't because then the question will be... why did SHE not do anything about it.



posted on Jun, 23 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

What's the wording she used.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1   >>

log in

join