It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Wiki edited Clinton out of Epstein’s bio but left Trump in . Re-edited after they were caught .

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 09:17 AM

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
a reply to: Fallingdown

I think it was removed because it wasn't relevant, and in itself wasn't evidence of anything.

Just because people rode on a businessman's plane doesn't make them all molesters.

Including those tidbits aren't relevant to what the page is about.. it's about Epstein, not the Clinton's.

If relevance was what they were after, why only leave in select people? Bias, that's why. And at the end of the day bias and "both parties do it" is why the scum of the earth walks among us.

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:26 AM
Unfortunately the modus operandi of many liberals has been to rewrite history to conform with their current agenda. The funny thing is--look at history and you soon discover what was once abhorrent to the group often shifts to the acceptable. And back again.

And it's not just liberals doing it, either.

It's pathetic.

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:26 AM
Well, what Conservative in their right mind still uses as a fact checking site?

The unreliable 'facts' of a fact-checking site plays fast and loose with the First Amendment and makes Christianity a target

The “fact check” site is useful when vetting a news story that favors a progressive take. If even the left-leaning Snopes finds it false or mostly false, that’s pretty persuasive. But not so much when it comes to something involving conservatives or conservative causes.


Wikileaks was called out in 2016, as a site run by staffers with "an explicit political agenda."

FROM 2016:

WikiLeaks has never simply acted as a neutral conduit, partly because it is staffed by humans who decide which information to seek and release, and partly because those staffers have always had an explicit political agenda.


I don't use anymore and after reading the OP's thread, I'll stop using Wikileaks too.

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:29 AM
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Well, why did they leave in Trump's name, as well as others? Clinton flew on the Lolita Express more than anyone and if you don't think that isn't suspicious, than you're VERY naive.

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 10:56 AM
We all know leftists love revisionist history. Wikipedia is fun to read for gee-wiz info but it's about as reliable (read: not very) as snopes when it comes to political matters.

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 11:47 AM
You can't ever trust Wiki for political or controversial stuff. Editors with agendas. For latitude and longitude it's not bad at all, but for anything serious it's a cesspool.
edit on 7/9/2019 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 01:02 PM
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Snopes will use one misspoken word and pretend it’s intentionally done then alledge bias . A good example was when Greg Gutfeld said Ted Kennedy “met” with the Russian officials to influence the election in 1984 .

He didn’t “meet” with them he wrote them a lette that that John Tunney passed along .

But because Ted didn’t “meet” with the Soviets Snopes gave it a false rating which made it appear that that the accurate data was wrong . ( its very effective on the researchers who stop “ researching “ after they read the headline )

Most of the time I like it when someone uses a snopes article as a fact. Their BS word games are easy to spot which makes it easy to put a bow on it and send it back .

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: Arnie123

That is true, my professors made it a point to tell us not to use it as a source. I knew about the bias long before that, but a lof of people still use it as factual information.

posted on Jul, 9 2019 @ 07:50 PM
It won't matter when the hammer comes down, but Google photos is also in the process of removing pictures of Epstein and Clinton together.

posted on Jul, 10 2019 @ 11:28 AM
Sadly when things are not in print form they can alter history fairly easily.

The amount of opposition trump receives is astounding.

How he can still make things happen is a miracle.

These liberals will go to some new lows this election

Its scary what Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others try and manipulate.

And even with all their effort and cheating they still cant win.
Democrats should be looked at with disgust next election.
Americans will see disgust
Foreigners and anti Americans will see promise and crazy enough the foreigners and anti Americans make up a good 40% of the population these days.

Lots of importing the dems have done the last 8 years

posted on Aug, 11 2019 @ 02:28 AM
Didn't Bill Clinton recently say that he's never been to Epstein's Lolita Island?

This newly unsealed testimony says that he was there and holding a private party:

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in