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.

 

Trump calls Flynn treatment 'unfair,' claims Clinton 'lied many times' with impunity

page: 4
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: Grambler

Why people don't get that is beyond me. The double standard is blatantly obvious even if you hate both of them. The same people would have raised a hue and cried if Trump had done the same. Investigations should be impartial and in Hillary's case they never were right from the get go.


I have said all along I want Mueller investigation to continue.

I also have said that even if he has biased people in his team, that doesn't seem to discount the probable evidence against people like mandatory and padopolous that they have.

But it amazes me to see otherwise intelligent people let their hatred of trump blind them to the double standard as to how the two investigations are being handled.

The funny thing many of these people hate the establishment too, and wanted someone like Bernie in.

Now the6 find themselves making excuses for the deep state.

Ironically, if a real outsider from the left ever gets elected, that person will get this very same harsh treatment from the deep state, and these people in here now saying there is no double standard will be screaming their heads off as to why people can't see the blatant double standard.

For what it's sorth, I will be right there with th though still calling out the establishment.




posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I've been watching fox all morning and it looks to me like the president is trying to discredit the fbi entirely.

I get the feeling he is scared.
Like he knows that something is coming for him from the fbi and wants to get ahead of it.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: sugarmonkey

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Perfectenemy


She lied, there is no question, but not to the FBI, there is a huge difference. It does not mean she did not lie.







I'm confused. So you know she lied but just not to the FBI? Just because someone said she didn't lie to the FBI doesn't mean she didn't. I would be more inclined to think that since she did lie to Congress then she most likely lied to them as well.


Now i'm confused. Are you allowed to lie to Congress but not to the FBI? Sounds kinda moronic if you ask me.


I think it's a moot question because I don't think HRC ever testified to Congress about her emails, did she? All I remember her doing is just flat out ignoring them about it.


Yes i mixed it up with the 12 hour or so hearing where she said what difference does it make and in that she lied aswell. I still think the whole investigation was rigged in her favor though.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: sugarmonkey

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Perfectenemy


She lied, there is no question, but not to the FBI, there is a huge difference. It does not mean she did not lie.

Agreed. Still ok tho ain't it?







I'm confused. So you know she lied but just not to the FBI? Just because someone said she didn't lie to the FBI doesn't mean she didn't. I would be more inclined to think that since she did lie to Congress then she most likely lied to them as well.


Now i'm confused. Are you allowed to lie to Congress but not to the FBI? Sounds kinda moronic if you ask me.


Agreed. It's still ok tho ain't it?



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I've been watching fox all morning and it looks to me like the president is trying to discredit the fbi entirely.

I get the feeling he is scared.
Like he knows that something is coming for him from the fbi and wants to get ahead of it.


That's the thing he is not wrong. The FBI was and probably still is compromised. I guess a desperatly needed purge is coming soon.
edit on 4-12-2017 by Perfectenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: sugarmonkey

It's confusing, especially in the manner that it's been presented in this thread, to keep track of. Here's my best crack at a summary of it:

Clinton says that Comey's comments backed her up when she stated that she was "truthful" in her narrative to the public about her email habits. Comey testified to Congress that while there was no evidence that Clinton had lied to them (being the FBI) during the investigation, that her comments to the public about her narrative were inaccurate and false.

So, in a nutshell: HRC lied her ass off to the public and tried to use Comey's wildly misinterpreted/misheard/misunderstood (by HRC) comments as a buttress for her statements to the public. But, at least so far as I know, Comey has never indicated they found anything to show that HRC lied to FBI investigators.


Still confusing but I get it.


Cheers for that.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

Too bad he didn't stay around long enough for someone to yell out "Prove it you moron!"
Lol. I always wonder how these news people keep so cool. I'd be thrown out.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Predictable.

Of course, if he wanted a more honest assessment and analogy of the White House and it's antics, he would use Richard Millhouse Nixon.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: sugarmonkey

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: sugarmonkey

It's confusing, especially in the manner that it's been presented in this thread, to keep track of. Here's my best crack at a summary of it:

Clinton says that Comey's comments backed her up when she stated that she was "truthful" in her narrative to the public about her email habits. Comey testified to Congress that while there was no evidence that Clinton had lied to them (being the FBI) during the investigation, that her comments to the public about her narrative were inaccurate and false.

So, in a nutshell: HRC lied her ass off to the public and tried to use Comey's wildly misinterpreted/misheard/misunderstood (by HRC) comments as a buttress for her statements to the public. But, at least so far as I know, Comey has never indicated they found anything to show that HRC lied to FBI investigators.


Still confusing but I get it.


Cheers for that.



Lol I tried man, sorry!

It's a Clinton scandal, confusion is bound to happen at some point I guess.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: whywhynot

They will lynch him if he issues even one pardon in this ordeal.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
So I'll ask you since I can't ask the liar in chief.
What lies did she tell the FBI in her interview?
And please provide the recording or transcript of the interview to support your claims.
Please show where and when she ever lied to the FBI or under oath to congress.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Just indict Hillary already or shut up.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

That liar Comey who's reputation is head and shoulders higher and more respected than trump will ever be? That guy? Yeah I doubt he needs to worry about his reputation or what trump thinks of him.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: whywhynot

They will lynch him if he issues even one pardon in this ordeal.


I don’t think so because “they” are mostly all dirty too. The grand settlement is coming silly and you will not get the details, just see the after effects.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: sugarmonkey

Even more disconcerting is how it's never been proven. Quite the opposite. But carry on...



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy




Comey already confirmed that Hillary lied mutiple times to the FBI and nothing happened under Obama because he was such a weak president


He did no such thing.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: whywhynot

What does one have to do with another? Are murderers using the "whattabout OJ" defense? Jesus. Clinton's guilt or innocence has absolutely nothing to do with Flynn's.

That's all absurd, irrelevant and purely political bull#. Flynn took a plea deal to avoid prosecution for more serious offenses. His life isn't being "ruined" for lying to the FBI, copping to the least of his offenses and cooperating with the Mueller team is what is shielding him from being held to account for the rest.

Want to see this go from bad to much much worse? Let that idiot pardon Flynn to undercut the investigation.


You are playing checkers and the politicians are playing 3D chess.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: sugarmonkey

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: sugarmonkey

It's confusing, especially in the manner that it's been presented in this thread, to keep track of. Here's my best crack at a summary of it:

Clinton says that Comey's comments backed her up when she stated that she was "truthful" in her narrative to the public about her email habits. Comey testified to Congress that while there was no evidence that Clinton had lied to them (being the FBI) during the investigation, that her comments to the public about her narrative were inaccurate and false.

So, in a nutshell: HRC lied her ass off to the public and tried to use Comey's wildly misinterpreted/misheard/misunderstood (by HRC) comments as a buttress for her statements to the public. But, at least so far as I know, Comey has never indicated they found anything to show that HRC lied to FBI investigators.


Still confusing but I get it.


Cheers for that.



Lol I tried man, sorry!

It's a Clinton scandal, confusion is bound to happen at some point I guess.


No need to be sorry!
It's hard to keep track of all the "truthful" statements she's made over the decades.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: six67seven



I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Trump is not doing anything new... everything has been done by prior presidents...


Exactly my point, he's no different than past presidents. So stop acting like he's different why don't you? Stop saying he's some kind of "breath of fresh air" if he's continuing to do what Obama and other past presidents did.

There's nothing disingenuous about my post, I'm calling a spade a spade.


By 'you' I'm assuming you mean the right, because I rarely, if ever, defend Trump (any politician), let along call him a breath of fresh air... not sure WTF you got that from.

You think otherwise, please point it out to me.



posted on Dec, 4 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


And the fact that we are now finding out some of the same bias people involved high up in Hillary's investigation are now investigations trump, it is very relevant to point out these double standards.


The extent of Strzok's bias isn't really known to us. FBI agents are allowed to vote, be members of political parties and contribute to candidates just like anyone else. It's kind of ridiculous to think that *any* FBI agent has no political bias.

I don't think commenting to his mistress about the debates constitutes an ethical breach either. That said, Mueller took the step of removing Strzok in mid-August when the texts came to light so he's not now involved in the investigation and hasn't been for the last two-thirds of the investigation up until now.

I would also suggest that Mueller acting promptly to remove Strzok over expressing political opinions in private to his mistress — a year earlier — shows that Mueller takes mitigating political bias very seriously. Wouldn't you?

Let's think about the greater implications beyond these clowns (Trump, Clinton, etc).

Who should investigate political figures? The argument from the Trump position seems to be (and correct me if I'm wrong) that somebody who supports Clinton shouldn't be able to investigate Clinton and that somebody who doesn't support Trump shouldn't be able to investigate Trump/people in his orbit.

Do you see the catch-22? For all intents and purposes we have two political parties. Take away the names and examine the proposition:

An investigator who supports group A can't investigate group A. An investigator who supports group B can't investigate group A either.

By that standard, every investigation of a politician/political group should be tossed out as they're all inherently prone to bias. In fact, who would Trump propose investigate Clinton if they open a new case? Well it better not be a Democrat or anyone who voted for Clinton because they'll be biased for Clinton. And it better not be a Republican or anyone who voted for Trump because they'll be biased against Clinton.

What are we left with? Outsourcing investigations to foreigners?




top topics



 
27
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join