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.

 

Shepherd Smith debunks his network’s Hillary Clinton ‘scandal’ story, infuriates viewers

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
This is for the 3 posters who are asking for "proof".
Gryphon, sillyolme, JoshuaCox...

While I appreciate your input, and memberships...

I see you 3 in almost every thread where there is something detrimental to the Clinton Foundation or Clinton. Like clockwork. You should form a team!

Look, we will never have your "proof" because the public isn't privy to that information: i.e., receipts of a donation transaction that may have directly involved the Clinton Foundation and the sale of uranium.

Through donations over the year, adding to hundreds of millions of dollars, we see the stage set to put 2 and 2 together. It's no secret that the Foundation took money...*ahem*...donations...from people or corporations in order to facilitate nefarious deeds. The reason people are being investigated stems from some of those very transactions. The public may never gain that knowledge.

Keep denying the idea that the Foundation, and their owners, are corruption incorporated. It suits you well. This isn't about Trumo anymore. It's about dealing with the real scum in DC.

But like ATS, and the motto: Deny Ignorance.







posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Would that apply to Sean Hannity and the Keurig boycott?

I agree on the people preferring a lie that conforms to their belief.
My mother and mother-in-law are hardline democrats who are set in their ways.
A political discussion with them is almost impossible regardless of the facts.
I don't even attempt anymore with them.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
What the hell does Shepard know ?

Nothing.

He's not an investigative journalist.

His job most of the time was going around the world in 80 seconds.



...and reading the teleprompter in front of him where others have composed the content...my best guess is he is auditioning for a big payday at another network, ala Greta Van Sustern, Megyn Kelly, etc...



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: abago71
a reply to: DBCowboy

Would that apply to Sean Hannity and the Keurig boycott?


To be honest, I haven't really followed that. I like Keurig. Big fan of the hot chocolate and the teas.


I agree on the people preferring a lie that conforms to their belief.
My mother and mother-in-law are hardline democrats who are set in their ways.
A political discussion with them is almost impossible regardless of the facts.
I don't even attempt anymore with them.


I guess it all comes down to the individual.

Would you rather hear an ugly truth or a pleasant lie?



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: havok




I see you 3 in almost every thread where there is something detrimental to the Clinton Foundation or Clinton.


A foundation worth over 2 billion dollars.

$500,000 speaking fees.

They actually think that is 'honest' work.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 08:57 AM
link   

In the 2010s, beginning primarily with a 2010 article in the New York Times,[95] Keurig has been publicly criticized by environmental advocates and journalists for the billions of non-recyclable and non-biodegradable K-Cups consumers purchase and dispose of every year, which end up in landfills.


en.wikipedia.org...

First the church of climatology agreed with boycotting Keurig until last week.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
This highlights a problem I have been talking about for some time.

Mainstream Republican is becoming even more extreme, falling for concocted conspiracies and complete BS, that the reasonable, intelligent Republicans are taking notice.

The Right Wing have decided to let the nuts run the nut house.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Input....

Not approval..

The state department submitted their analysis along with no telling how many other agencies..

As shep sites in the video. There is a specific group of 9 people that takes all of that analysis and then all of them vote, and requires unanimous approval..

Then the president can veto that approval if necessary..

The Secretary of State doesn’t write every report on everything they submit input on..

It seems to me you would be paying off the 9 people that require unanimous approval...

It’s the same BS with Benghazi....

Do you really think the asset on the ground reports directly to the Secretary of State/president?!?!

Hell no.. I’m sure there are literally a dozen steps between one and the other...


Even if we did say that maybe some of those donations were for favors, the gop types and trump are still ball face lying by pretending she sold 20% of the US uranium to Russia..

Which is what they claim whenever given the opportunity..

If the republicans would just use an ounce of deductive reasoning they wouldnt constantly be fooled by fake scandals...scandals a gop led commission later investigated and finds no wrong doing..



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: abago71

How the conservative base doesn’t notice that even on Fox News.. the pro trump network, all the hard news people bash him and ONLY the opinion people push trumps propaganda..


Liberal debunks "Fox is a pro-Trump network" narrative, infuriates fellow liberals.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

Ole Shep's been bitter and resentful every since he came out of the closet (as if that were really necessary)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Threaper


that's all you got??? oh my.. this is fun.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: havok
This is for the 3 posters who are asking for "proof".
Gryphon, sillyolme, JoshuaCox...

While I appreciate your input, and memberships...

I see you 3 in almost every thread where there is something detrimental to the Clinton Foundation or Clinton. Like clockwork. You should form a team!

Look, we will never have your "proof" because the public isn't privy to that information: i.e., receipts of a donation transaction that may have directly involved the Clinton Foundation and the sale of uranium.

Through donations over the year, adding to hundreds of millions of dollars, we see the stage set to put 2 and 2 together. It's no secret that the Foundation took money...*ahem*...donations...from people or corporations in order to facilitate nefarious deeds. The reason people are being investigated stems from some of those very transactions. The public may never gain that knowledge.

Keep denying the idea that the Foundation, and their owners, are corruption incorporated. It suits you well. This isn't about Trumo anymore. It's about dealing with the real scum in DC.

But like ATS, and the motto: Deny Ignorance.






None of this is proof. It is just you getting indignant that people are asking you for proof, but no one cares about your feelings so this is irrelevant. Prove that what you said isn't a simple coincidence; saying it has been discussed on ATS isn't proof of anything and by no means a logical counterpoint to convince people that you are sincere. If it is true and a simple action of denying ignorance will show it, then you should have no problem producing credible evidence.

If you have to heavily infer Hillary's guilt because the evidence isn't available, then you are just speaking out of partisan biases and shouldn't listened to any further lest someone confuse the actual meaning of "deny ignorance" with "embrace biases".
edit on 15-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Deetermined

She had a proxy sign off on it she didn't even sign it and what about all those other agencies? It's bull that the right is so desperately, so very very desperately, trying to get people to buy because it distracts from trumps troubles with Russia and what the special counsel is discovering in his investigation.



What discoveries?

Who were the other people that signed off on it?

And what about the FBI investigations already in progress about bribery and corruption involving some of the players?

Obama had to know all about it. How much did he get?




posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: havok


How does this explain the millions of dollars that came into the Clinton Foundation after the sale of Uranium One?


How do you explain the money that came in before? It is a foundation. People donate. Some of them because they are altruistic, others because they believe it will buy them access. For there to be an actual scandal, you have to prove that the people who donated for access were rewarded. That is extremely difficult to prove, as Trump will eventually have to argue about Mar A Lago.
edit on 15-11-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-11-2017 by DJW001 because: Edit because autocorrect thinks Trump is spelled Grump or Frump.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Deetermined

Input....

Not approval..

The state department submitted their analysis along with no telling how many other agencies..

As shep sites in the video. There is a specific group of 9 people that takes all of that analysis and then all of them vote, and requires unanimous approval..

Then the president can veto that approval if necessary..

The Secretary of State doesn’t write every report on everything they submit input on..

It seems to me you would be paying off the 9 people that require unanimous approval...

It’s the same BS with Benghazi....

Do you really think the asset on the ground reports directly to the Secretary of State/president?!?!

Hell no.. I’m sure there are literally a dozen steps between one and the other...


Even if we did say that maybe some of those donations were for favors, the gop types and trump are still ball face lying by pretending she sold 20% of the US uranium to Russia..

Which is what they claim whenever given the opportunity..

If the republicans would just use an ounce of deductive reasoning they wouldnt constantly be fooled by fake scandals...scandals a gop led commission later investigated and finds no wrong doing..



You make it sound like those 9 people don't know or have any ties to each other.

They are all appointees by obama. No one voted them into that position.

Look for the connections and see who are still around.

Newt Gingrich on the subject.




edit on 11 15 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)

edit on 11 15 2017 by burgerbuddy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

You make it sound like those 9 people don't know or have any ties to each other.

They are all appointees by obama. No one voted them into that position.

Look for the connections and see who are still around.


So, according to you, people are guilty of things just through association. No need proving they actually did something wrong. They were all nominated by Obama? GUILTY!

By that same reasoning, I guess the whole Trump admin is guilty of the same crimes as Paul Manafort and Micheal Flynn.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy....Funny, your "no one cares about my feelings" bit. But there are millions of Americans that care about the same subject matter, feelings aside. Nice jab, though.

I don't have to infer Clintons guilt. You just want proof that we may never see (the public) and you know we may never see it, to keep up your blatant support. Funny, again...you calling it a coincendence. I don't believe in coincendences. But you....obviously want to get me on something...have at it.

There is no partisan bias coming from me. If any foundation had the amount of corruption and money coming in the limelight like this one does, I would raise a flag. HRC and Trump aside, this has to do with Congressional meetings and politicians that may have been involved in one of the biggest scandals to date.

Nevermind poli-ticks for a second. As human beings, why does this kind of corruption need to exist?







posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

Shepherd Smith brings balance to Fox News. CNN and MSNBC have no balance. They are 100% Pure Anti-America.



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: havok

Still a bunch of words and no hard evidence. Are you ever going to get around to proving your point or are you just going to talk at me that I won't believe you? Because it sounds an AWFUL lot like a deflection because you know you can't prove your point.

Also, no # that there are millions of Americans who care about this subject matter, but your feelings aren't the subject matter. So conflating the two is dishonest.


There is no partisan bias coming from me. If any foundation had the amount of corruption and money coming in the limelight like this one does, I would raise a flag. HRC and Trump aside, this has to do with Congressional meetings and politicians that may have been involved in one of the biggest scandals to date.

And I'd be happy to believe you if you'd just #ing prove it! I don't buy people appealing to my emotions or making heavy inferences based on speculation. If you want to bring me around then you need admissible evidence in court. So far, there is nothing connecting Clinton to the Uranium One deal in a nefarious means. Even IF she received donations during the same time frame it occurred. Clearly they were legal.

All I see from you is, "I want to desperately believe Hillary Clinton is guilty of something and this is the latest train to jump on to do so." One more thing, I'm NOT a Hilary Clinton supporter. I supported Bernie Sanders, so stop inventing my beliefs for me to attack. I just follow the evidence and the current evidence says she is not guilty.
edit on 15-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy, you sound like everyone on that side from the beginning of this fiasco. "I need proof because I am plugging my ears! NaNaNaNa!".

Ok bud. I don't desperately want you to believe anything. You either see this kind of corruption, or you don't.

You don't.





new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join