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.

 

Could media lies be behind the impeachment push?

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman
There could be video footage of him pooping on his desk at the oval office, while Stormy spanks him with one of the fake Time magazines he had made with him on the cover, and you'd all be like, "look he maga"


And there could be proof that so many of your tropes never happened and youd still spout this bs.........

Stormy says no affair

I could go on but im wasting my time on TDS........carry on





posted on Oct, 10 2019 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Oh , the DECLAS Will expose them All , but it Will take Time . Maybe 2 Years at Most .



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: watchitburn
The media in the US seems to have taken lessons from Baghdad Bob.

They're getting hysterical.




The media are doing what they do, the hysteria is coming from those that follow the media programming 24/7


So it's not the fault of the media, it's the fault of the citizens.

Gottit.





Yes if you are willing to let media do the thinking for you it's your fault, no one else's. Blaming media for your consumption of it is the same as an alcoholic blaming the alcohol for causing the addiction.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

That is a bit rich. No one has had time to debunk it because it was invented shortly after the Ukrainian call went public.

After all, didn't Trump suggest that somehow the Ukrainians had the DNC e-mail server? I hadn't read anything like that until that memo of the call was released.

How the hell could the server end up in the Ukraine? I think that the idea is so preposterous that no-one would bother trying to debunk it without some good reason to believe there was a grain of truth in that cluster of nuttiness.




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: LordAhriman
We have a buffoon for a president. Here's your sign.
d

Just so I see more than "derp" with your post, could you explain what this has to do with the media lying about the Ukraine thing being debunked?

Thanks.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
How about a station that I can check in occasionally to see the national news... without HAVING to fact check it?


You could try Fox News,
No need to fact check, most of it is rubbish fake news, any of the rest will be out there somewhere.

All media can lie, even the best of them.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

while you are likely being snarky, Fox lies just like the rest, they just tell our side what we want to hear. Much like CNN, BBC, MSNBC and others do for your side. If you want real news, you have to take what you are told, and dig into the facts. But you knew that.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

That is a bit rich. No one has had time to debunk it because it was invented shortly after the Ukrainian call went public.


which was kind of the point of the thread. Thanks for catching that.


After all, didn't Trump suggest that somehow the Ukrainians had the DNC e-mail server? I hadn't read anything like that until that memo of the call was released.

How the hell could the server end up in the Ukraine? I think that the idea is so preposterous that no-one would bother trying to debunk it without some good reason to believe there was a grain of truth in that cluster of nuttiness.



I believe the server is the one the "Russians" used to hack the DNC. Crowdstike checked it out and assured us that it was the one, and the Russians did it. If you read the transcript of the call, you can figure this out.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lumenari
"originally posted by: Atsbhct
Next on ATS: Why is Trump facing impeachment?

Half of Americans (or less, probably less): It's the damn MEDIA!!!

Rest of the world except Kim Jong Un: You elected...an imbecile."

You and yours are 30% of America.

More like 15%... maybe 20% at most.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

TV and radio news is only accurate 50% of the time.

think about that folks

Newspapers are accurate 75% of the time

Social media news is accurate .03% of the time......



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 12:05 PM
link   
son "what did you do when trump was in power daddy?"
dad "i blamed the media for repeating his words"
son "this rat tastes funny"



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


" After all, didn't Trump suggest that somehow the Ukrainians had the DNC e-mail server? I hadn't read anything like that until that memo of the call was released. "


Really ? The Babuska's Knew All about it Before You did Mr. Brainonaut ? Hmm.....









posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Or maybe it’s just corrupt behavior by Trump, Giuliani, the two guys arrested yesterday for corruption, and others.

Remember Occam's Razor


Suppose there exists two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the smallest number of assumptions is usually correct. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation.


But if you prefer your conclusions with multiple overlapping conspiracy theories by both the “deep state” and the “fake main stream media”, that’s fine too.




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 05:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gorgonite

I agree. Occam's Razor. We had 3 years and numerous investigations and Trump has been clean every time. The simplest answer is that he is simply clean.



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gorgonite

I agree. Occam's Razor. We had 3 years and numerous investigations and Trump has been clean every time. The simplest answer is that he is simply clean.




Clean as in Well Groomed , or Well Informed Intellectually in Oder to Deflect False Allegations Detrimental to his Current Presidency ?.......Hmm........
edit on 11-10-2019 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gorgonite

I agree. Occam's Razor. We had 3 years and numerous investigations and Trump has been clean every time. The simplest answer is that he is simply clean.


I think you and I have differing opinions on the word "clean". If a presidential candidate's campaign has over 200 contacts with the foreign government attempting to sway the election in favor of that presidential candidate, I don't consider that "clean".

The only reason he got off is that Mueller was unable to prove Trump personally sought out assistance. Mueller even stated that the evidence probably existed but was destroyed by the Trump campaign.


While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

The special counsel's office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records. In such cases the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with the other known facts.


So yeah, you can have your definition of "clean", but that is definitely not how I define it.




posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Debunked? When? By whom?


The FBI. The Intelligence Community. The Mueller Investigation.

Russia was behind it, not Ukraine. Those are the facts. This is all common knowledge. In reality.


The Senate Intelligence Committee, a Republican-led panel that has been investigating foreign electoral interference for more than 2½ years, said in blunt language that Russians worked to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton while bolstering Republican Donald Trump — and made clear that fresh rounds of interference are likely ahead of the 2020 vote.

Link 1


Mueller’s investigation disclosed an elaborate campaign of hacking and propaganda during the 2016 presidential race and resulted in indictments that charged 25 Russian individuals and three Russian companies.

Link 2

Senate Report on Russian Interference: PDF

Thread: Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election

Thread: Senate Intel Report: Russia 'exploited the seams' in US election security defenses in 2016

Etc.

But keep your head in the sand if you want.


Trump and Ukraine? LOL, debunked months ago! Only stupid folk still think that way. Derp.

Pretty much, yes. But you said it, not me.
edit on 11-10-2019 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

That is a bit rich. No one has had time to debunk it because it was invented shortly after the Ukrainian call went public.


which was kind of the point of the thread. Thanks for catching that.


After all, didn't Trump suggest that somehow the Ukrainians had the DNC e-mail server? I hadn't read anything like that until that memo of the call was released.

How the hell could the server end up in the Ukraine? I think that the idea is so preposterous that no-one would bother trying to debunk it without some good reason to believe there was a grain of truth in that cluster of nuttiness.



I believe the server is the one the "Russians" used to hack the DNC. Crowdstike checked it out and assured us that it was the one, and the Russians did it. If you read the transcript of the call, you can figure this out.


Come on "network dude", what hacker worth his salt would attack using a physical machine and a server at that? Too incriminating.

What they'd do is spin up a VM, probably running a Linux distro, with a stack of exploits inbuilt, attack away, transfer the captured data to removable storage (and no hacker would bother copying the bits that everyone already has, they'd only bother with the real dirt) and then blow the VM away, destroying the evidence that could tie them to the hack or even quantify what was hacked.

CrowdStrike didn't identify the server. They identified the methodology of the hacks as coming from two Russian groups, one code named Cozy Bear and the other Fancy Bear. Here's a link to a recent Crowdstrike blog post about it.

The IP address for one part of the e-mail hack affair was identified (not by CrowdStrike) when, briefly, Guccifer 2.0 forgot to start their VPN. They normally used EliteVPN (a Russian software) that exited through a French data center, but instead Guccifer 2.0 logged in to a social media site directly from an IP address that was physically located in a building on Grizodubovoy Street in central Moscow, a building that also happened to be the head office of the Russian GRU. In case you are unsure the Ukraine and Russia are different countries and were at war with each other at the time of the DNC e-mail hacks. Both identified hacking groups were Russian, not Ukrainian.

And, in case you are suggesting that the Ukrainian CrowdStrike debacle involved a server, the issue was that CrowdStrike mis-attributed some alleged malware, attached to an Android phone app used to target Howizers, as being a project of the Fancy Bear group. It turned out the app was clean, despite what CrowdStrike believed. But, there were no servers involved and as there was no actual malware there could not possibly have been servers involved, anyway. So Trump couldn't have been talking (intelligibly) about that, could he?



posted on Oct, 11 2019 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

" After all, didn't Trump suggest that somehow the Ukrainians had the DNC e-mail server? I hadn't read anything like that until that memo of the call was released. "

Really ? The Babuska's Knew All about it Before You did Mr. Brainonaut ? Hmm.....




Thank you for the compliment (perhaps? or not?).



Also perhaps these Babuska's are, like, psychic?

And are they Russian Babuska's or Ukranian ones? You do realize that they are different countries and were/are at war?



Anyway, I prefer this one:

edit on 11/10/2019 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gorgonite

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Gorgonite

I agree. Occam's Razor. We had 3 years and numerous investigations and Trump has been clean every time. The simplest answer is that he is simply clean.


I think you and I have differing opinions on the word "clean". If a presidential candidate's campaign has over 200 contacts with the foreign government attempting to sway the election in favor of that presidential candidate, I don't consider that "clean".

The only reason he got off is that Mueller was unable to prove Trump personally sought out assistance. Mueller even stated that the evidence probably existed but was destroyed by the Trump campaign.


While the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

The special counsel's office learned that some of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or that do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records. In such cases the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with the other known facts.


So yeah, you can have your definition of "clean", but that is definitely not how I define it.



wow, it sounds like you all picked the wrong guy for the job. If Trump is that guilty, and Mueller had all that time and money, and a gaggle of democratic lawyers who all hated Trump, yet couldn't come up with even ONE crime to prosecute. LOL, I guess I can see why you would be so triggered and upset. Perhaps you all should pick a better team next time.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join