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.

 

More Evidence of FBI Fixing in the Hillary eMail Case

page: 2
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

No one is going to be reversing any decision that the FBI made you do know that right?

What is your point. Its going nowhere.




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

You said evidence in the title, but it appears that what you are talking about in the OP is an absence of expected evidence.


Um, excuse me, there was a gateway pundit piece included in OP.

gateway pundit is like, journalism or something.

I don't know if you're new around here, but MSM sources are fake news, and we're also not allowed to question gateway pundit or we're committing a logical fallacy. So I'm gonna have to kindly ask you to check yourself before you wreck yourself.


edit on 4-6-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:09 AM
link   
If the FBI did not follow agency practice with the Hillary email investigation, this is a problem. We have texts indicating that the FBI was 'taking it easy' on her. We have the news that they did not fill out FD 302's for some interviews. We already knew that Cheryl Mills was allowed to sit in the interview of Hillary as legal counsel, even though she was a witness in the case.

No, no evidence here....



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

No one is going to be reversing any decision that the FBI made you do know that right?

What is your point. Its going nowhere.


The FBI isn't the Supreme Court. There's no FBI legal precedent.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Judicial Watch is the source of all of this and their sources are FOIA documents related to the matter.

Then there's this gem:




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

I don't doubt that the FBI treated Hillary favorably. I just like laughing about gateway pundit being completely kosher here. You see it in a lot of threads.

What Hillary did was illegal, and she is the patsy for the rest of government doing similar action. While many of them had private emails, but not a private server... Some have deleted said emails while under investigation too. That does not absolve her of wrongdoing, and accountability must start somewhere.

And while your Judicial Watch source does indeed have documents that they base their claims on, it should be noted that Judicial Watch is a dodgy outlet themselves. I guess I just find it odd that many here are vigilant to question articles and more importantly the source until it comes to one that typically is jive with their cause. While these documents appear to be real, I haven't yet concluded if I agree with their wording and how linear their conclusions are.

Now for a question, kind of rhetorical, but you can answer if you'd like. You had a thread yesterday going after the MSM (whom I've also made threads on and dislike, so we're in agreement here), do you like Judicial Watch and Gateway pundit? And if you do is it because they touch on stories others don't, or is it the approach they take?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:17 AM
link   
What a bombshell!

This time Hillary Clinton is going down for good! Thx for the thread!



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I generally like Judicial Watch and have no opinion on Gateway Pundit.

Judicial Watch is only dodgy because it's run by conservatives. But they don't post fake information.

I use sources from everywhere so long as I can verify independently and no ambiguous language is used. Anything with "sources close to the blah blah blah" crap doesn't work for me.

I like documents, evidence, and corroboration thereof. I also don't stick to "conservative" sources generally. I prefer to meet my debate opponents on their terms with their sources. I try not to use sources that are hyper-partisan.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

If that were the case Flynn should be freed.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Fair enough, it was an honest question. Your answer wouldn't have changed the fact that I always take you seriously, because I know you take yourself seriously. I know that you generally mean to find the truth, and I can myself read or watching something and see through the BS and get to the meat.

It has been alleged they have run a number of fake stoires however.

I understand everyone is going to have a little bias, but they appear to have more of an agenda, and they rarely question those on the right.

The Intercept used to be my favorite outlet, their factual reporting is one of the best... However they have been getting a little blatant recently. They'd be dead to me, but at least they go after everyone.

An outlet is a BS artist if they act like only one side is the problem IMO.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: xuenchen

You said evidence in the title, but it appears that what you are talking about in the OP is an absence of expected evidence.


Um, excuse me, there was a gateway pundit piece included in OP.

gateway pundit is like, journalism or something.

I don't know if you're new around here, but MSM sources are fake news, and we're also not allowed to question gateway pundit or we're committing a logical fallacy. So I'm gonna have to kindly ask you to check yourself before you wreck yourself.




Would Gateway Pundit ever have a pro-Democrat 'news' item, ever?

If not, then it is not news, but is propaganda.

The same rule can be applied to other news sources. It is that simple.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

The supreme court has nothing to do with it. She was never charged with anything to begin with. There is no trial to be appealed to the supreme court. They have nothing to say about it.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

DIdn't he say he was guilty?



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: projectvxn

The supreme court has nothing to do with it. She was never charged with anything to begin with. There is no trial to be appealed to the supreme court. They have nothing to say about it.


Do you even read what you write? That wasn't the point I was making at all.

You said the following:


No one is going to be reversing any decision that the FBI made you do know that right?


You insinuated that the FBI had made some kind of irreversible decision with regard to Clinton. They did not. ONE GUY made a decision not to pursue charges, arguably based on BS reasoning. It can be and hopefully will be revisited and properly investigated.

What I said is that the FBI isn't SCOTUS and what the FBI decides at any given moment can be changed.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

There is no double jeopardy in this, as she was never charged. If you remember Paul Manafort was investigated and not charged for the crimes, Mueller decided years later to charge him with, so as long as she remains above the dirt, she has potential to be back in the hot seat. As most on the right believe, she was shown to be above the laws the plebes adhere to, and seeing justice brought to her for the crimes JAMES COMEY listed in his press briefing that you don't seem capable of understanding, would be a really wonderful thing. I doubt it will happen, just as I doubt Jussie Smolette will ever admit he is a douche bag. Both seem to have the same cloud of smug arrogance about them, that really needs to be smacked off, but one can hope.

And please, if you ever do have an epiphany about her crimes listed, and you decide to understand what that all means, be sure to let me know, so I can stop assuming you will pull the same old game you usually do. Thanks in advance.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: GBP/JPY

BWAHAHAHA

That is hilarious..

She is insanely rich and powerful and isn’t even under investigation for anything lol..


I'm assuming that CNN is the one that told you she is not currently under investigation.

She most certainly is.



edit on 4-6-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

you really have no clue what you are talking about . Trump was interviewed . Please just start your post with Hello everyone I don't know anything but I have the right to say something



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Lumenari

haha


And this is an example of why I normally don't reply to you.

Your posts to me are just such exquisitely crafted rejoinders that it really leaves me unable to reply.

I bow to your obviously superior intellect and will let myself out now.




posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


...While these documents appear to be real, I haven't yet concluded if I agree with their wording and how linear their conclusions are.


"Appear to be real?"Are you implying that they could be fake?

The email in which it is discussed that some of the 302s were never written:


JW v. DOJ Strzok Page Emails Prod 6 00154 - (direct .pdf link, go to Page 51 of 218 to see the above email)

Not only were four never written, but it seems that Peter Strzok was editing 302s as per DOJ instructions.
edit on 4-6-2019 by jadedANDcynical because: added, "it seems that..."



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Look, I don't doubt the FBI did some very questionable things....kind of their MO. Add in the Clinton's, nothing would surprise me.

I just try not to speak in absolutes. I'm trying to condition myself to be more critical and open minded. How many times have we bit the onion here, ya know?




top topics



 
37
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join