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.

 

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama admin approved nuclear deal with Moscow

page: 34
141
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Lol sorry buddy you can’t have it both ways. Oh man, you really don’t see the credibility you gave up be spending a year calling everything fake news do you?

I mean, you could have argued the points or defended the accusation but you and yours chose the dumbest possible move— calling FBI investigations fake news and hoaxes.

And now you have a thread where you have the balls to bring up the concept of FBI investigations?? Nope, sorry.

No credibility. It’s gone. You don’t get to pick and choose reality.




posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I don't think you have half a peg leg to stand on in the realm of credibility there bud.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I don't think you have half a peg leg to stand on in the realm of credibility there bud.


Oh, sorry, the consensus of FBI, NSA, and CIA not good enough for you? Let me guess you prefer Breitbart and Russia Today.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Ha, again, in the face of plausible argument you divert right to insults. You're going to have to admit that you just can't hang in this debate. You can't construe opinion as factual evidence. No one has debunked nor proven the original ANALYSIS of the paper from January. It's currently at a stale mate.

Keep trying though, maybe you'll get there.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Grambler

Lol sorry buddy you can’t have it both ways. Oh man, you really don’t see the credibility you gave up be spending a year calling everything fake news do you?

I mean, you could have argued the points or defended the accusation but you and yours chose the dumbest possible move— calling FBI investigations fake news and hoaxes.

And now you have a thread where you have the balls to bring up the concept of FBI investigations?? Nope, sorry.

No credibility. It’s gone. You don’t get to pick and choose reality.


Please quote me where I called fb I investigations fake news.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert




And I was obviously correct. Trump's people had met with known foreign agents and did not disclose those meetings. Hillary and her staff, apparently did not do the same thing. Or are you going to try to say, as another member did, that her meetings as SoS fall in to the same category?


You were incorrect then and incorrect now. Claiming "i win" does not make it so.


What's to win?

There is a huge difference in the two situations and to claim otherwise is laughable.


You tell me. Claiming your supreme correctness sans proof would put you on that pedestal.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Wow, so you’ve now accepted the intelligence assessment from the CIA, FBI, NSA, DNI that Russia ran a complex campaign to hurt Hillary Clinton and favor Trump?

That’s a huge first step into reality. I’m impressed.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert




And I was obviously correct. Trump's people had met with known foreign agents and did not disclose those meetings. Hillary and her staff, apparently did not do the same thing. Or are you going to try to say, as another member did, that her meetings as SoS fall in to the same category?


You were incorrect then and incorrect now. Claiming "i win" does not make it so.


What's to win?

There is a huge difference in the two situations and to claim otherwise is laughable.


You tell me. Claiming your supreme correctness sans proof would put you on that pedestal.



Proof has been provided. It is not my problem if there are those that refuse to look at it and be honest enough to admit that one is not like the other.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Hey man, you’re the one saying the consensus of FBI, NSA, CIA is meaningless. So where do you get your intel? Is it Breitbart and Russia Today?



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert




And I was obviously correct. Trump's people had met with known foreign agents and did not disclose those meetings. Hillary and her staff, apparently did not do the same thing. Or are you going to try to say, as another member did, that her meetings as SoS fall in to the same category?


You were incorrect then and incorrect now. Claiming "i win" does not make it so.


What's to win?

There is a huge difference in the two situations and to claim otherwise is laughable.


You tell me. Claiming your supreme correctness sans proof would put you on that pedestal.



Proof has been provided. It is not my problem if there are those that refuse to look at it and be honest enough to admit that one is not like the other.


As many times as you repeat it, you still fail to see you have proven nothing.

Your own words said the collusion investigation into trump was necessary because of their connections to foreign agents.

Many examples have been provided of Hillary or her associates connections to foreign agents.

You are now backtracking and squirming to somehow claim Hillary's connections dont matter.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: JinMI

Hey man, you’re the one saying the consensus of FBI, NSA, CIA is meaningless. So where do you get your intel? Is it Breitbart and Russia Today?


Why don't you go on and quote that for me.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert




And I was obviously correct. Trump's people had met with known foreign agents and did not disclose those meetings. Hillary and her staff, apparently did not do the same thing. Or are you going to try to say, as another member did, that her meetings as SoS fall in to the same category?


You were incorrect then and incorrect now. Claiming "i win" does not make it so.


What's to win?

There is a huge difference in the two situations and to claim otherwise is laughable.


You tell me. Claiming your supreme correctness sans proof would put you on that pedestal.



Proof has been provided. It is not my problem if there are those that refuse to look at it and be honest enough to admit that one is not like the other.


No, in fact it has not. Otherwise there wouldn't be a debatable point.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

34 pages and all you’ve convinced anyone of is your ability to ignore a year of FBI investigation and suddenly awaken from your slumber for this.

Not very convincing, bud. Next thread I’d nix any mention of FBI if I were you... at least until you stop supporting the whole “fake news” mantra of the perpetual denialists.

I can’t stress that point enough. You don’t get to gerrymander reality.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



As many times as you repeat it, you still fail to see you have proven nothing.


Myself and others have proven quite a bit. You fail to understand it, or admit it.

That is not my burden to bear.



Your own words said the collusion investigation into trump was necessary because of their connections to foreign agents.


I've said nothing about collusion. That is not a crime in and of itself. I thought you knew that.



Many examples have been provided of Hillary or her associates connections to foreign agents.


True, but not illegal connections.



You are now backtracking and squirming to somehow claim Hillary's connections dont matter.


No backtracking or squirming required. Can you prove her connections were illegal?

Please do so.

I'm all ears...



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert




And I was obviously correct. Trump's people had met with known foreign agents and did not disclose those meetings. Hillary and her staff, apparently did not do the same thing. Or are you going to try to say, as another member did, that her meetings as SoS fall in to the same category?


You were incorrect then and incorrect now. Claiming "i win" does not make it so.


What's to win?

There is a huge difference in the two situations and to claim otherwise is laughable.


You tell me. Claiming your supreme correctness sans proof would put you on that pedestal.



Proof has been provided. It is not my problem if there are those that refuse to look at it and be honest enough to admit that one is not like the other.


No, in fact it has not. Otherwise there wouldn't be a debatable point.


So you are one of those that refuse to look at it an be honest.

Again, not my problem.
edit on 19-10-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert




And I was obviously correct. Trump's people had met with known foreign agents and did not disclose those meetings. Hillary and her staff, apparently did not do the same thing. Or are you going to try to say, as another member did, that her meetings as SoS fall in to the same category?


You were incorrect then and incorrect now. Claiming "i win" does not make it so.


What's to win?

There is a huge difference in the two situations and to claim otherwise is laughable.


You tell me. Claiming your supreme correctness sans proof would put you on that pedestal.



Proof has been provided. It is not my problem if there are those that refuse to look at it and be honest enough to admit that one is not like the other.


No, in fact it has not. Otherwise there wouldn't be a debatable point.


So you are one of those that refuse to look at it an be honest.

Again, not my problem.


Exact same to you.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

You should really read the news more.Turns out yellow cake from the US was shipped to canada. They just used a company with ashipping licence called Rsb logistics. So ironically they get around them not having one by hiring a company that does. In other words the obama admin lied and they indeed do export Uranium to customers from the US.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Read the times article posted earlier if its true after the investigationshe indeed broke the law. If the FBI can confirm the new york times information correct she will goto jail for along time imight add.
edit on 10/19/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



As many times as you repeat it, you still fail to see you have proven nothing.


Myself and others have proven quite a bit. You fail to understand it, or admit it.

That is not my burden to bear.



Your own words said the collusion investigation into trump was necessary because of their connections to foreign agents.


I've said nothing about collusion. That is not a crime in and of itself. I thought you knew that.



Many examples have been provided of Hillary or her associates connections to foreign agents.


True, but not illegal connections.



You are now backtracking and squirming to somehow claim Hillary's connections dont matter.


No backtracking or squirming required. Can you prove her connections were illegal?

Please do so.

I'm all ears...


Hahahaha!

That's why the investigation needs to happen.

You demand guilt be proven BEFORE an investigation.

How ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
a reply to: Grambler

34 pages and all you’ve convinced anyone of is your ability to ignore a year of FBI investigation and suddenly awaken from your slumber for this.

Not very convincing, bud. Next thread I’d nix any mention of FBI if I were you... at least until you stop supporting the whole “fake news” mantra of the perpetual denialists.

I can’t stress that point enough. You don’t get to gerrymander reality.


In other words you are a liar and I never said fbi investigations were fake news.

Pathetic.
edit on 19-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join