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.

 

Biased FBI And DOJ Officials Broke The Law And Tried To Decide The Election(Deleted Forbes Article)

page: 2
55
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

THEY LIVE ..Seriously






posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
To all the naysayers of this OP, you sure don't provide any intellectual stimulation for this discussion. You guys just want to shut all things that disagree with you down. lol. And they wonder why Trump won.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuidedKill

Why would Forbes write, publish and then remove this article? It seems to lay out a pretty apparent timeline and all seems to be factual..

So why take it down?




You do know this is an opinion piece right? Forbes didnt write or publish the article.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: GuidedKill

Why would Forbes write, publish and then remove this article? It seems to lay out a pretty apparent timeline and all seems to be factual..

So why take it down?




You do know this is an opinion piece right? Forbes didnt write or publish the article.


It looks more like an accurate report on what happened. All of the details mentioned are common knowledge.

But the guilty still believe that calling it some kind of opinion, or lies is going to somehow invoke occult protection and make it so.

It's obvious at this point what the truth is, brainwashing notwithstanding.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: GuidedKill

Why would Forbes write, publish and then remove this article? It seems to lay out a pretty apparent timeline and all seems to be factual..

So why take it down?




You do know this is an opinion piece right? Forbes didnt write or publish the article.


It looks more like an accurate report on what happened. All of the details mentioned are common knowledge.

But the guilty still believe that calling it some kind of opinion, or lies is going to somehow invoke occult protection and make it so.

It's obvious at this point what the truth is, brainwashing notwithstanding.




I see the trend of people not understanding editorials or opinion pieces continues. I never said it was wrong just dont invoke the name of the paper to give weight to an editorial/opinion piece. It is not backed by the paper and the writer stands on their own with their content.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
Having trouble accessing the cached article on my phone. We'll have to try it on my Chromebook in a bit.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

It's craptastic. It's filled with lies and half truths, and is it even an article? It's like a copy paste from true pundit.


Just because you type the words "lies and half truths" doesn't suddenly invalidate the opinion piece...except maybe for the lazy reader who might think, "well I guess he has done his research and must know that the article is "craptastic". No sense in me spending additional time to determine if this is a false claim. Case closed."

The timeline, and the statements made in each entry, seem to jive pretty closely with what has happened - and is common knowledge to anyone who has been paying attention over the last two years.

Time will tell, I guess, if Sessions ever crawls out of his turtle shell and rolls some heads (then again, maybe wheels are turning that we don't know about yet...and the IG and others are just not leaking details).



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill





...Why would Forbes write, publish and then remove this article? It seems to lay out a pretty apparent timeline and all seems to be factual..

So why take it down?


 



if the story went viral, then proved to be generally accurate.... then the defense might not be able to seat a non-Prejudiced Jury.... the Laws Broken would be one trial then civil actions would then be legit to prosecute

 

 



problem:

Having trouble accessing the cached article on my phone. We'll have to try it on my Chromebook in a bit.



the Forbes site navigation of archives is deplorable --- but not in the nice way]/b]
edit on th28151828932910022018 by St Udio because: add rider



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle
I see the trend of people not understanding editorials or opinion pieces continues. I never said it was wrong just dont invoke the name of the paper to give weight to an editorial/opinion piece. It is not backed by the paper and the writer stands on their own with their content.

Ok so honest and fair question but how is it not backed by the paper? If it's written by their editorial staff/publisher and they decide to publish it, does that not mean that they endorse it at least a little bit? Do they have to make some statement formally approving it or what?
edit on 10-2-2018 by looneylupinsrevenge because: reasons



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
Because it's an opinion piece by the former head of the california republican party and, just read it.

It's craptastic. It's filled with lies and half truths, and is it even an article? It's like a copy paste from true pundit. Now, I realize most of you mistake the spin for the facts in well, everything, but I'm glad the folks at Forbes don't agree with you.


How about you point out the lies and half-truths you claim are in there?... But then again, we all know how the Shillary brigade loves to claim their witch of the west is the one being wronged...

Ironic how left-wingers love to ignore the fact that Hillary was the one who truly colluded with Russia...

Fact 1, Hillary voted yes to the Uranium 1 deal meanwhile the Russians were transferring $250 million dollars (my initial figure of $150 million was short by $100 million) to the Clinton foundation and Bill was receiving money from the Russians for speeches he kept making in their favor...

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

Fact 2, all the claims about "anonymous sources" from the left about "Trump colluded with the Russians" have turned out to be paid for convoluted lies from democrat puppets like Comey, McCabe, et al.

Fact 3, there has been no proof presented that President Trump colluded with the Russians... Nothing except claims which have been shown to be fake...

But again, you, and the rest of the Shillary brigade are going to make excuses about these facts like you always do.



edit on 10-2-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Jefferton

Government conspiracies are big business for the media these days, why wouldn't they take advantage of their opportunities? The MSM have the highest ratings in their history and people like the OP are a big reason for that.


Really?...is that why left-wing giants like Google, Yahoo, Fakebook, etc, etc, alongside the left-wing media have been not only calling for demonetizing news that dare not have the lies of the left-wing media, but in fact they have been suppressing conservative voices?...

You all in the left make lots of claims about "the right being fascist", when the true fascists are yourselves... The same way that the left has been demonizing "white, straight, conservative" people is the same way that the NAZIs demonized minorities. The left claims the right are racists, and bigots yet it is the left who have become bigots and racists claiming that being white is still giving people an advantage, just like the NAZIs claimed the Jewish people had an unfair advantage by having control of the banks, and finances in general and that they were subjugating the majority of the German people.

During NAZI Germany minorities were being demonized, and the NAZIs claimed to be superior in every way. These days the majority is being demonized and anyone who dares not kowtow to left-wing ideology. Not to mention that the left also claims to be superior in pretty much every way to conservatives, and that "only liberalism and the left's view of progress will save future generations".

We get inundated with claims from left-wing psychologists, and psychiatrists claiming that holding conservative values is a threat to the nation and the future. Not to mention the claims about "being mentally unstable" for "holding conservative values"...



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Pyle
I see the trend of people not understanding editorials or opinion pieces continues. I never said it was wrong just dont invoke the name of the paper to give weight to an editorial/opinion piece. It is not backed by the paper and the writer stands on their own with their content.

Ok so honest and fair question but how is it not backed by the paper? If it's written by their editorial staff/publisher and they decide to publish it, does that not mean that they endorse it at least a little bit? Do they have to make some statement formally approving it or what?


Papers/News orgs post Op-eds all the time. en.wikipedia.org...

Doesnt mean the paper/new org agrees with them.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Pyle
I see the trend of people not understanding editorials or opinion pieces continues. I never said it was wrong just dont invoke the name of the paper to give weight to an editorial/opinion piece. It is not backed by the paper and the writer stands on their own with their content.

Ok so honest and fair question but how is it not backed by the paper? If it's written by their editorial staff/publisher and they decide to publish it, does that not mean that they endorse it at least a little bit? Do they have to make some statement formally approving it or what?


Papers/News orgs post Op-eds all the time. en.wikipedia.org...

Doesnt mean the paper/new org agrees with them.

That doesn't really make sense the paper has complete dominion on what is printed, for instance a member of the KKK can't submit an opinion piece about how they feel blacks are destroying the country... or rather they can but the paper isn't very likely to ever print such a thing. It could (and likely would) easily be seen as them supporting a racist viewpoint. For good reason, it is their paper and they have final editorial control over whats printed. So at least in some small way they do have to agree or at least see it as a valid commentary.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:32 AM
link   
FYI: Forbes is now owned and controlled by ASIAN investors.


The new ownership team is led by Hong Kong-based Integrated Asset Management, founded by Tak Cheung Yam. Another investor with a significant stake is Singapore businessman Wayne Hsieh, the co-founder of Asustek Computer.
Source: nypost.com...

I think most readers still believe that Forbes is American owned.



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: looneylupinsrevenge

originally posted by: Pyle
I see the trend of people not understanding editorials or opinion pieces continues. I never said it was wrong just dont invoke the name of the paper to give weight to an editorial/opinion piece. It is not backed by the paper and the writer stands on their own with their content.

Ok so honest and fair question but how is it not backed by the paper? If it's written by their editorial staff/publisher and they decide to publish it, does that not mean that they endorse it at least a little bit? Do they have to make some statement formally approving it or what?


Papers/News orgs post Op-eds all the time. en.wikipedia.org...

Doesnt mean the paper/new org agrees with them.

That doesn't really make sense the paper has complete dominion on what is printed, for instance a member of the KKK can't submit an opinion piece about how they feel blacks are destroying the country... or rather they can but the paper isn't very likely to ever print such a thing. It could (and likely would) easily be seen as them supporting a racist viewpoint. For good reason, it is their paper and they have final editorial control over whats printed. So at least in some small way they do have to agree or at least see it as a valid commentary.


The whole point of op-eds is to bring in dissenting opinions. It is why you have Trump surrogates on CNN and Liberals on Fox News. You cant tell me Fox news really sees liberal commentary as valid?



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

Yup



posted on Feb, 11 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
"Tom, Hillarys' hitman is on line 3, he wants to talk about the article you just posted, and he said something about your window drapes being open....."

Fred..



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical
That isn’t how it works. It doesn’t go to print without the Editor seeing it. I guarantee you that at least 15 people read that article from the time the outline was created and the rough draft written. After it’s written it goes through a fact check and is either polished by the author or another staff member. It’s the same way news outlets like Reuters publishes stories. It also needs to be said that a story starts from an idea and then a lot of people touch the information prior to it even being written. Lots of checks and balances to reduce liability. No one wants to get sued.



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Double post. Sorry.
edit on 12-2-2018 by ColdChillin because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
55
<< 1   >>

log in

join