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: 9
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin
a reply to: Xcathdra

This is all the proof we need to strip their amendment right of freedom of the press, because theyre clearly not anymore. They've brainwashed countless liberals against their own nation.

Hey look people are still ignoring that this completely bogus story has been debunked already, a couple of pages ago.

There were no journalists that colluded. The emails show nothing of the sort. What they do show is there is communication between the media and the Office of Public Affairs - it even shows how they don't necessarily ask the OPA first about a story.

This story is a misrepresentation of what the emails say - selective quoting the WaPo journalist (along with not revealing that he had already published a story about the meeting) and desperately stretching in the case of the NYT journalist. People should be ashamed; most of those commenting may have read the article, but they sure as hell did not read the emails that the article cites as evidence.

Now, members in the thread have gone off on various tangents because they sure as shooting don't want to discuss that this story is FAKE NEWS.

Seriously folks, why are you ignoring it? Pride? Honestly, I'm surprised this isn't hoax binned - it should be.
edit on 15Sat, 05 Aug 2017 15:08:08 -0500America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago8 by Greven because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

Except the emails do show collusion when they communicate with the DOJ talking about intentionally not reporting on the story to help damp it down.


try again.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
You are either willfully lying or completely ignored my post to the contrary:

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burntheships

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!

This is an email which is literally just listing the news about the story.

Where in the email is the collusion? Why are people unwilling to back the claims with proof?

Furthermore, you quoted this:
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.


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?

Please explain how an email asking a pretty tough question about conflict of interest an email colluding to bury a story?

Even further, here's the WaPo email, which sounds more nefarious at first glance:

Hey Melanie (Newman) and Kevin (Lewis)-

Any chance one of you could give mea call for another, hopefully quick, conversation on this AG-Clinton meeting? My editors are still pretty interested in it, and I'm hoping I can put it to rest by answering just a few more questions about how the meeting came about - who approached who, and how did they realize they were in the same place?

Many thanks,
Matt Zapotosky | The Washington Post

However... that is a conditional remark - he wants to answer more tough questions.

Apparently the editors at WaPo still certainly have interest in the story. There's also the matter of this being written on Thursday June 30, 2016, when he had already published a story about it on June 29th: Attorney general meets with former president Clinton amid politically charged investigation into his wife’s email.

Within that story, is this little blurb:

A Justice Department spokeswoman provided transcripts of Lynch’s comments on the matter at public news conferences but declined to comment further.

You see this in the email exchange:

(from Melanie Newman)
It would be much appreciated if you removed the "spox did not return calls for comment"

He did update the story slightly in response:

(from Matt Zapotosky)
I updated the last graph to take that out, reflect that you willingly provided transcripts and added a bit about career prosecutors. Thanks for reaching out - next time I'll get at you diretly. Again, just figured since Kevin was with her and operating three hors earlier than us he'd be better in this case.


The article in the OP is literally disinformation, citing sources that do not say what it claims, and you're going around parroting them without questioning them or apparently even bothering to read them.

This ABOVE TOP SECRET! DENY IGNORANCE! Please! For the love of God!

Refute it if you dare.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

and they killed the story... Are you unable to understand what they are saying in the email? They arent going to cover it.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

and they killed the story... Are you unable to understand what they are saying in the email? They arent going to cover it.

THEY LITERALLY POSTED A STORY ABOUT IT THE DAY BEFORE ARE YOU BLIND?



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well let's see how this gets buried and mis-directed.

And again, it took a lawsuit to get the info.

I think the last Administration had this buried but not deep enough.



and of course, none of this could be a faked Russian BS doc dump, like the infamous and false "pizzagate" story......got it



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

They killed the story by their failure to report on it in any depth. Hence the "pressed into service" comment. As the exchange states only Fox News is going to cover it because other media outlets decided to avoid it.

Are you blind? How are you not understanding this?



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Found this new vid that adds to the bigger picture with some details that are going to connect some important dots



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

They killed the story by their failure to report on it in any depth. Hence the "pressed into service" comment. As the exchange states only Fox News is going to cover it because other media outlets decided to avoid it.

Are you blind? How are you not understanding this?

Obviously you didn't read the NYT email or my damn quotation of it; a White House correspondent was pressed into service by being put on a story that wasn't about the White House - note how WaPo is using National Security correspondents? That's where the story is under. See what the NYT reporter is asking? Does that sound like he's avoiding hard questions to you?

WHERE in the exchange does it say ONLY FOX NEWS is going to cover it? You have now made a claim, prove it NOW, quote and link the EMAIL that SAYS JUST THIS or what you THINK says that.

Also, here's the 'avoiding the story' WaPo:
How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
Th e Lynch/Clinton tarmac tête-à-tête sends the message
Attorney general pledges to accept FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email probe
What was Bill Clinton trying to accomplish in his tarmac meeting?
Attorney general declines to provide any details on Clinton email investigation
This is what Loretta Lynch is thinking now
FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for more than 3 hours in email probe
Justice Department closes Clinton email probe without charges
FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe
House Republicans grill FBI director Comey on Clinton emails
W ho had the Worst Week in Washington? Bill and Hillary Clinton.
These are just articles and opinion pieces on WaPo mentioning it within the week following this email exchange - totally avoiding the story uh-huh.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

They killed the story by their failure to report on it in any depth. Hence the "pressed into service" comment. As the exchange states only Fox News is going to cover it because other media outlets decided to avoid it.

Are you blind? How are you not understanding this?

Obviously you didn't read the NYT email or my damn quotation of it; a White House correspondent was pressed into service by being put on a story that wasn't about the White House - note how WaPo is using National Security correspondents? That's where the story is under. See what the NYT reporter is asking? Does that sound like he's avoiding hard questions to you?

WHERE in the exchange does it say ONLY FOX NEWS is going to cover it? You have now made a claim, prove it NOW, quote and link the EMAIL that SAYS JUST THIS or what you THINK says that.

Also, here's the 'avoiding the story' WaPo:
How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
Th e Lynch/Clinton tarmac tête-à-tête sends the message
Attorney general pledges to accept FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email probe
What was Bill Clinton trying to accomplish in his tarmac meeting?
Attorney general declines to provide any details on Clinton email investigation
This is what Loretta Lynch is thinking now
FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for more than 3 hours in email probe
Justice Department closes Clinton email probe without charges
FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe
House Republicans grill FBI director Comey on Clinton emails
W ho had the Worst Week in Washington? Bill and Hillary Clinton.
These are just articles and opinion pieces on WaPo mentioning it within the week following this email exchange - totally avoiding the story uh-huh.


Thank for all those WAPO articles did you find any of them from msm TV news, you know, CNN or the big three Lib channels or even the MS L S D 's as we like to call them?




edit on 5-8-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx


and of course, none of this could be a faked Russian BS doc dump, like the infamous and false "pizzagate" story......got it


Did you bother to read the source links?
These emails are from The DOJ.

But convenient to dismiss it because they
can't be construed to fit a narrative?



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

This is all the proof we need... it's time to weed out the FBI and the MSM. You guys place bounties on Clinton and Lynch. I will supply the handcuffs.

edit on 5-8-2017 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: imitator


There is more!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It has been discovered that Lynch also used an Alias email.
This would mean there are likely lots more emails that were not
released, due to hidden from FOIA.

The alias name has been found to be that of her grandmother.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

They killed the story by their failure to report on it in any depth. Hence the "pressed into service" comment. As the exchange states only Fox News is going to cover it because other media outlets decided to avoid it.

Are you blind? How are you not understanding this?

Obviously you didn't read the NYT email or my damn quotation of it; a White House correspondent was pressed into service by being put on a story that wasn't about the White House - note how WaPo is using National Security correspondents? That's where the story is under. See what the NYT reporter is asking? Does that sound like he's avoiding hard questions to you?

WHERE in the exchange does it say ONLY FOX NEWS is going to cover it? You have now made a claim, prove it NOW, quote and link the EMAIL that SAYS JUST THIS or what you THINK says that.

Also, here's the 'avoiding the story' WaPo:
How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
Th e Lynch/Clinton tarmac tête-à-tête sends the message
Attorney general pledges to accept FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email probe
What was Bill Clinton trying to accomplish in his tarmac meeting?
Attorney general declines to provide any details on Clinton email investigation
This is what Loretta Lynch is thinking now
FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for more than 3 hours in email probe
Justice Department closes Clinton email probe without charges
FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe
House Republicans grill FBI director Comey on Clinton emails
W ho had the Worst Week in Washington? Bill and Hillary Clinton.
These are just articles and opinion pieces on WaPo mentioning it within the week following this email exchange - totally avoiding the story uh-huh.


Thank for all those WAPO articles did you find any of them from msm TV news, you know, CNN or the big three Lib channels or even the MS L S D 's as we like to call them?




The OP and Xcathdra claim that WaPo and others were trying to bury the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting.

The plethora of stories from WaPo following that rather suggests otherwise, don't you think?

Honestly I have no idea what you mean as it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand and the reason for why I posted those links. This is not particularly difficult to discern if you read my post.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: jimmyx


and of course, none of this could be a faked Russian BS doc dump, like the infamous and false "pizzagate" story......got it


Did you bother to read the source links?
These emails are from The DOJ.

But convenient to dismiss it because they
can't be construed to fit a narrative?

What's convenient is that you and your source take emails out of context and utterly refuse to respond to refutations.

Respond to my refutation if you really actually believe this fake news.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: imitator
a reply to: burntheships

This is all the proof we need... it's time to weed out the FBI and the MSM. You guys place bounties on Clinton and Lynch. I will supply the handcuffs.

What proof? The out-of-context snippets from emails? The allegations that the emails say something that they do not?

I've shown why this story is bull# all these people keep saying is 'oh well it definitely says collusion!' or something along those lines... or just ignore it entirely. This is just pathetic and sad at this point.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

They still show up in the FOIA though. I think any alias account she uses still has to be marked as belonging to her. They'd have to use a different system for off-the-record communication.

More on that: Cutepants



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven
Your entitled to your opinion, however these emails
must be viewed in light of the entire scandal, starting
with the fact that Hillary Clinton was under a criminal
FBI investigation when Lynch and Bill Clinton met
clandestinely on her plane.

Also there are many facets to this FOIA, starting with
the first denial for the FBI that there were no records.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: RazorV66
a reply to: burntheships


This is clear evidence of an attempted cover up by the MSM news and the Obammy goons.





originally posted by: network dude
It shouldn't matter which side you are on, this is wrong. It was wrong when the press ignored Ron Paul, and it's wrong when they collude with the FBI to smear the current administration.

Just a note to all those on the left who don't see anything wrong with this, a precedent is being set here, be #ing ware.



Remember this little Jewel from several Years ago?:
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

Makes you wonder doesn't it? Propaganda was legalized for government use. Does it look like it is being used ?


edit on th2017000000Saturdayth000000Sat, 05 Aug 2017 23:23:13 -0500fAmerica/ChicagoSat, 05 Aug 2017 23:23:13 -0500 by SoulSurfer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Greven

They killed the story by their failure to report on it in any depth. Hence the "pressed into service" comment. As the exchange states only Fox News is going to cover it because other media outlets decided to avoid it.

Are you blind? How are you not understanding this?

Obviously you didn't read the NYT email or my damn quotation of it; a White House correspondent was pressed into service by being put on a story that wasn't about the White House - note how WaPo is using National Security correspondents? That's where the story is under. See what the NYT reporter is asking? Does that sound like he's avoiding hard questions to you?

WHERE in the exchange does it say ONLY FOX NEWS is going to cover it? You have now made a claim, prove it NOW, quote and link the EMAIL that SAYS JUST THIS or what you THINK says that.

Also, here's the 'avoiding the story' WaPo:
How everyone looks bad because Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch
Th e Lynch/Clinton tarmac tête-à-tête sends the message
Attorney general pledges to accept FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email probe
What was Bill Clinton trying to accomplish in his tarmac meeting?
Attorney general declines to provide any details on Clinton email investigation
This is what Loretta Lynch is thinking now
FBI interviews Hillary Clinton for more than 3 hours in email probe
Justice Department closes Clinton email probe without charges
FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe
House Republicans grill FBI director Comey on Clinton emails
W ho had the Worst Week in Washington? Bill and Hillary Clinton.
These are just articles and opinion pieces on WaPo mentioning it within the week following this email exchange - totally avoiding the story uh-huh.


Thank for all those WAPO articles did you find any of them from msm TV news, you know, CNN or the big three Lib channels or even the MS L S D 's as we like to call them?




The OP and Xcathdra claim that WaPo and others were trying to bury the Clinton/Lynch tarmac meeting.

The plethora of stories from WaPo following that rather suggests otherwise, don't you think?

Honestly I have no idea what you mean as it is completely unrelated to the subject at hand and the reason for why I posted those links. This is not particularly difficult to discern if you read my post.



I recall the OP said ALL but FOX of the MSM buried it and WAPO isn't even MSM that the regular man reads. Deflection fail. MSM buried the story, period.
edit on 6-8-2017 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join