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.

 

Whistleblowers accuse Clinton Foundation of criminal activity. Media silent.

page: 5
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Intellect, no so much.
Paying attention, more so.


Deny Ignorance. Doncha know.

edit on 12/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf

Intellect, no so much.
Paying attention, more so.


Trivial objections
edit on 14-12-2018 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

You seemed to think it was less than trivial, previously.

Enough to make an erroneous claim.

edit on 12/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf

You seemed to think it was less than trivial, previously.
s

You brought it up. Hot air, correct?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf



You brought it up. Hot air, correct?

Indeed. The whistleblowers' testimony would seem to be just that, without supporting documentation.

In response, you provided an erroneous claim.

How long do you want to keep this up?



edit on 12/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf



You brought it up. Hot air, correct?

Indeed. The whistleblowers' testimony would seem to be just that, without supporting documentation.

In response, you provided and erroneous claim.

How long do you want to keep this up?




They testified under oath. But you dismissed it as "hot air" before quibbling about my use of the word "media" and where their documentation was.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
Clinton debunkerss seem to think that saying "that ain't so" is proof enough. Been watching the Clinton shuck and jive since the late 1980s, those two are the Bonnie and Clyde of DC , services past rendered to the deep state will not excuse the level of evil they represent.
Justice needs to be served.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Yeah, they testified under oath about their opinions of the Clinton Foundation. So what? Can one perjure oneself when speaking about one's opinions?


But you dismissed it as "hot air" before quibbling about my use of the word "media" and where their documentation was.
Actually I "quibbled" about your use of the word in the first line of my first post. I later said it was hot air because they presented no documentation to support their opinions.

Keep up, dude.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf

Yeah, they testified under oath about their opinions of the Clinton Foundation. So what? Can one perjure oneself when speaking about one's opinions?


But you dismissed it as "hot air" before quibbling about my use of the word "media" and where their documentation was.
Actually I "quibbled" about your use of the word in the first line of my first post. I later said it was hot air because they presented no documentation to support their opinions.

Keep up, dude.


Yes, and still, none of the examples you provided in your first post mentioned anything about the criminal activity they accused the Clintons of. You might had known that if you knew what I was talking about.

Had you have gone to rushlimbaugh.com before hand, you might have been informed.
edit on 14-12-2018 by Propagandalf because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf


Did they not claim under oath that their documentation/evidence exists...and, ALSO under oath, that it is currently in the possession of the IRS and FBI?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf
That would be the hot air aspect.



Had you have gone to rushlimbaugh.com before hand
From the hot air bloviard? No thanks.

edit on 12/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf
That would be the hot air aspect.


That's also the aspect I was talking about. If only you knew.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Propagandalf


Did they not claim under oath that their documentation/evidence exists...and, ALSO under oath, that it is currently in the possession of the IRS and FBI?

Yes. All of it "hot air".



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Perhaps you should attempt to express yourself more clearly then.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf

Perhaps you should attempt to express yourself more clearly then.


Whistleblowers accuse Clinton Foundation of criminal activity. Media silent.



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

They did indeed.

Now what?



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf



You brought it up. Hot air, correct?

Indeed. The whistleblowers' testimony would seem to be just that, without supporting documentation.

In response, you provided and erroneous claim.

How long do you want to keep this up?




They testified under oath. But you dismissed it as "hot air" before quibbling about my use of the word "media" and where their documentation was.


I wouldn't really bother with the person you are replying to... I think of him as 'Captain Sophistry".

He has a superpower, to obfuscate a thread about anything negative of the Clinton Crime Family and drag it down so many dead ends that eventually the thread itself is all about what the definition of "is" is.

At the end of the day though, just remember that his head is so far up Hillary's butt that it would take a team of surgeons hours to figure out there he stopped and she started.

To the OP, I wonder if this is something in conjunction with Huber's investigation of the Clinton Foundation? Or another thing entirely?

Interesting times...




posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Propagandalf

Most of the media silent, indeed.

But those who hang on Rush'es every word already know all about it. And those who are interested in actual evidence (like Congress) have none.
edit on 12/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari

I appreciate your interest in me. But you seem to think that I either voted for Hillary and/or think she would have been a good president. You are mistaken. Which is not unusual.

edit on 12/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Propagandalf

Most of the media silent, indeed.

But those who hang on Rush'es every word already know all about it. And those who are interested in actually evidence (like Congress) have none.


What about those who hang on the mainstream media's word? I wager they're ignorant on the topic.

I heard the IRS and FBI are interested in actual evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join