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.

 

DOJ Documents Dump On Clinton Lynch Meeting Prove Media Collusion; FBI Lied

page: 5
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

Apparently not if you are asking for where the collusion is at. So now its not enough that the NYT and WaPo stated they would damp down the story. You ignore that and want the emails?

Apparently denial just aint a river in Egypt.

WHERE in WHICH email DOES IT STATE THAT?

Let me explain what you are doing:
You are saying - this article makes claims, therefore it definitely happened!
When I ask where the evidence is for the claims made by the article, you are saying I didn't read the article.

Do you see the problem here?

Here's another problem - the article twisting what the emails say:

originally posted by: burntheships
REPORT: Lynch Colluded with WaPo, NYTimes to Bury Tarmac Meeting Story


The documents, part of a hundred-page document dump by the DOJ, appear to show reporters from the Washington Post working with the Clinton campaign as well as Loretta Lynch’s office to tamp-down stories relating to the former Attorney General’s infamous meeting with Bill Clinton. The WaPo journalist, speaking of the tarmac meeting, told DOJ officials “I’m hoping to put it to rest.” A reporter from the New York Times made similar statements, saying he was being “pressed into service” and was forced to cover the story.


Let's put it like this - this is the "pressed into service" email mentioned above:

Hi Melanie,
I'm a White House correspondent at the NYT, and I've been pressed into service to write about the questions being raised by the Attorney General's meeting with Bill Clinton. Could you let me know what DoJ and the AG have said specifically about this meeting, and whether she believes it constitutes a conflict of interest, given the ongoing email investigation?

How the hell is an email asking a pretty tough question about conflict of interest an email colluding to bury a story?
edit on 16Fri, 04 Aug 2017 16:45:20 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

I don't believe that reporter's claim of the FBI interfering. Why would the Bureau even have a presence there, let alone be guarding the President? If you ask me - which you didn't, but hey ho - this was the Secret Service protecting presidential security by keeping the president's location under wraps until he continued with his journey.

I mean, that's what the Secret Service does. It's their job.

I suppose one set of hard-jawed young men with sharp haircuts and dark suits looks much the same as any other to a TV news anchor from Buttf*ck, Idaho.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TacSite18

Is there any chance you can actually do research on your own?

Reporter: FBI Ordered 'No Photos, No Cell Phones' of Lynch-Clinton Meeting


The reporter who acted on a tip to go to Sky Harbor International Airport and witnessed the Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton clandestine meeting said the FBI agents there ordered "no photos, no picture, no cell phones."

Christopher Sign told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Thursday that the attorney general's plane landed on time while the former president and his entourage were running late.
"The former president than steps into her plane. They then speak for 30 minutes privately," Sign, a morning anchor for KNXV-TV ABC 15 said on "The O'Reilly Factor."

"The FBI there on the tarmac instructing everybody around, 'No photos, no pictures, no cell phones.' He then gets off the plane, gets on his own plane, he departs, she continues on with her planned visit."


click link for rest of article.


As of now, there has only been one reporter that claimed such an order was given, but has not been willing to ask questions regarding it.

So as of now, it appears it's the word of one man. Unless you have another source saying the same thing.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: TacSite18

Is there any chance you can actually do research on your own?

Reporter: FBI Ordered 'No Photos, No Cell Phones' of Lynch-Clinton Meeting


The reporter who acted on a tip to go to Sky Harbor International Airport and witnessed the Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton clandestine meeting said the FBI agents there ordered "no photos, no picture, no cell phones."

Christopher Sign told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly on Thursday that the attorney general's plane landed on time while the former president and his entourage were running late.
"The former president than steps into her plane. They then speak for 30 minutes privately," Sign, a morning anchor for KNXV-TV ABC 15 said on "The O'Reilly Factor."

"The FBI there on the tarmac instructing everybody around, 'No photos, no pictures, no cell phones.' He then gets off the plane, gets on his own plane, he departs, she continues on with her planned visit."


click link for rest of article.


And where are the threats that you posted?

I noticed you did not quote my post, so you can avoid my calling you out?

Where is your source about threats?

I don't see any threats, like you posted about. Where you posted that the local media were threatened.

"No photos, no pictures, no cell phones" is not a threat. Or do you think it is?

Is it maybe a condition for being allowed into a security perimiter?

Is it something that reporters hear all the time?

Hell, you can't get into the Federal building I work in without agreeing to the same conditions!

But, back to the topic - where are the threats that you said were made?

Sources?

No?

It is ok if you just made that part up.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: theantediluvian

Touch a nerve did I?

I like how you called the members useful idiots, best part is that anyone can see your agenda, who else has 133 threads in the mudpit against Trump?



Touch a nerve? Not at all. Add that to the list of things you're no doubt horribly wrong about. As you've noted, I have — wait, did you count them? I almost feel bad, I've never even looked at your threads. Probably because I don't care enough about anything you say to do so, let alone for it to "touch a nerve."

But since you counted them: Do you really believe that after 133 anti-Trump Mud Pit threads and thousands of insulting posts from triggered Trump supporters — all desperate to shut me up — that you're going to be the one to succeed with some feeble blathering about my "agenda?"

Lmao. Now back to my challenge to you, for which you offered whatever that was supposed to be:


I'll challenge you to put or shut up as I have with what? 3 or 4 others in this very thread.

Please point to specific contents in any of the linked emails that substantiates allegations made in the title/OP of this thread.


So, should I take your failure you to produce as tacit concession?
edit on 2017-8-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Thats because the meeting was supposed to be secret and was leaked to the local media outlet in question.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

Apparently not if you are asking for where the collusion is at. So now its not enough that the NYT and WaPo stated they would damp down the story. You ignore that and want the emails?

Apparently denial just aint a river in Egypt.

WHERE in WHICH email DOES IT STATE THAT?

Let me explain what you are doing:
You are saying - this article makes claims, therefore it definitely happened!
When I ask where the evidence is for the claims made by the article, you are saying I didn't read the article.

Do you see the problem here?


The alt-right kids are really into dodging their own claims today.

They keep asserting stuff, then deflecting when you ask for the source.

Guess they are bitter about Trumps future.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Thats because the meeting was supposed to be secret and was leaked to the local media outlet in question.


Correct. The man that broke the story and claims the FBI said this or that was not even there. He relied on unnamed sources to that claim. Or so he says.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

but in this case, it "wasn't"




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Please cite the collusion in the emails. I do not see it.


Right here!

media.aclj.org...

This was collusion, illegal and it was part of election fraud!



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




But since you counted them: Do you really believe that after 133 anti-Trump Mud Pit threads and thousands of insulting posts from triggered Trump supporters, desperate to shut me up, that you're going to be the one to succeed with some feeble blathering about my "agenda?



I didn't have to count, it says right in your info how many threads you make in said category, and the part you claim I'm trying to shut you up is a lie but I am calling you out for what you are, deal with it.



Oh and I did hit a nerve and you know it.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
If anyone doubts there was media collusion with the Clinton camp, just read the wikileaks DNC dump.
The Clinton campaign wrote whatever news stories that they didn't vet before the reporters posted them.
edit on b000000312017-08-04T16:51:04-05:0004America/ChicagoFri, 04 Aug 2017 16:51:04 -0500400000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships


The documents came from the DOJ.


You mean the documents you still haven't read? Why does that matter? You're not actually arguing about anything that's in them. You're just regurgitating the spin that was dreamed up by Trump's lawyer and his media shill.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

They were nervous about the "Hillary" investigations.




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Thats because the meeting was supposed to be secret and was leaked to the local media outlet in question.


Here we go again...

Source please on who said "the meeting was supposed to be secret"

where did you get that information?

Who decided that It was supposed to be secret?

Or did you also just make that up?

It is ok if you did, just preface it with "I thnk..." And then you are ok.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Thats because the meeting was supposed to be secret and was leaked to the local media outlet in question.


Correct. The man that broke the story and claims the FBI said this or that was not even there. He relied on unnamed sources to that claim. Or so he says.


The reporter was Christopher Sign, morning anchor, who was tipped and who was on scene.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

As the watch dangles in front of your eyes:

You are getting sleepy.

When you wake up, you will not remember any of this.




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj




One would have to be a complete moron to think that Trump came to power with the objective of destroying the media in the hope of instituting some kind of right-wing caliphate.


declaring himself on tape bragging of rape as fake news and the media that carried the story as untrustworthy while, as has been proven he pushed the seth rich lie and told people to view fox, breitbart and infowars as bastions of truth.

in no way is he pressing people to trust far right sources...

ffs



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: TacSite18

The fact media was tipped to the meeting is evidence. The fact Lynch claimed they only discussed grand kids and golf yet refuse a FOIA request on "deliberative process grounds" is your second clue. the fact no cell phones / video were allowed is your third clue. The 2 media outlets colluding to kill the story is your 4th clue.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TacSite18

Clinton and Lynch both never "announced" anything.

Then they scrambled like jack rabbits when the "Press" showed up "un-announced".

The FBI and SS just about had cows.

Remember this happened right BEFORE Comey made the famous "Hillary" announcements".




new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join