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.

 

Snopes says Hillary Clinton didn't appear in court 6/2

page: 2
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699


In June 2020, as protests ignited by the police-custody death of George Floyd swept across the U.S., a widely shared social media meme asserted that former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been “‘on trial’ for Benghazi,” but the news of that occurrence had been obscured by news media coverage of the Floyd protests:


So, Snopes has one of its NPCs post a false-flag social media meme so that Snopes can immediately debunk it as 'false' in an attempt to distract folks from the fact that Hillary is being hunted for her dodginess.

Nice, but only low-infos take Snopes' proclamations as official announcements from the Ministry-of-Truth.




posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: bender151
a reply to: Flesh699

Cant provide any sort of evidence to your claim, even though plenty to the contrary. Me thinks you just might be "a lil tupid."



edit on fSundayAmerica/Chicago1205699 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699
I think you Mandela-effect’d ....
Or you’re obsessed with $hilary like another prominent atser



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 05:22 PM
link   


Snopes says Hillary Clinton didn't appear in court


Who cares what snopes thinks or does. I can still hear the chant of "lock her up" in my ears. trump will soon have her indited, have a trial and she will get locked up like he promised.



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Flesh699
I think you Mandela-effect’d ....
Or you’re obsessed with $hilary like another prominent atser





posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Since when has snopes been considered a “fact” checker? Is there any website in existence that is more ‘fake’ than snopes?

If snopes says it’s true, it’s not



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 06:03 PM
link   
(METRO 6/11/20)

Early last week, CNBC reported that a judge has ordered Hillary Clinton must testify at a deposition for a lawsuit related to her use of a private email server for official business while working as secretary of State under President Obama between 2009 and 2013.

Read more: metro.co.uk...
Twitter: twitter.com... | Facebook: www.facebook.com...



More
As a federal appeals court grappled on Tuesday with a politically charged dispute that long ago faded from the headlines, one of the most urgent and politically polarizing legal fights of the moment seemed to lurk just below the surface.

The official topic of Tuesday’s arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was Hillary Clinton’s bid to avoid giving an in-person deposition to a conservative group about the subject that dogged her during her 2016 presidential bid: her use of a private email account and server during her tenure as secretary of state.
(POLITICO 6/2/20)



a reply to: Flesh699



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flesh699
I watched it with my own eyes. How many others here watched it and why is snopes saying it's false? I watched her get grilled by that congresswoman.

www.snopes.com...

And why does it say she didn't appear in court? Can someone explain this to me because I'm feeling a lil tupid. Even if the hearing wasn't court she was still being grilled over her emails.

"it had nothing to do with the 2012 attack in Benghazi, was not a “trial,” and did not involve any appearance by Clinton herself in court."


SEE ABOVE START OF THREAD. WISH I COULD PIN THIS TO THE TOP....
edit on 28-6-2020 by drewsocean because: Forgot a point



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Flesh699

It says it was a court hearing.

The 'true or false' claim that Snopes was following was if she was on trial. Which she wasn't.

Did you read the link at all?


Yes I did. Can you explain why it says: "it had nothing to do with the 2012 attack in Benghazi, was not a “trial,” and did not involve any appearance by Clinton herself in court."

All (but trial) of that paragraph is false. It had every thing to do with Benghazi, her emails, and she was in fact there.

Me and my mother both watched it. Even if it wasn't a trial that's an incredibly weird way to say something like that.


This month?

Because the claim (if you read the article) in the meme is that there was a trial this month.

It doesn't say "never". It says she was in court on trial during June 2020.

She wasn't.
edit on 28-6-2020 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: drewsocean
(METRO 6/11/20)

Early last week, CNBC reported that a judge has ordered Hillary Clinton must testify at a deposition for a lawsuit related to her use of a private email server for official business while working as secretary of State under President Obama between 2009 and 2013.

Read more: metro.co.uk...
Twitter: twitter.com... | Facebook: www.facebook.com...



More
As a federal appeals court grappled on Tuesday with a politically charged dispute that long ago faded from the headlines, one of the most urgent and politically polarizing legal fights of the moment seemed to lurk just below the surface.

The official topic of Tuesday’s arguments before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was Hillary Clinton’s bid to avoid giving an in-person deposition to a conservative group about the subject that dogged her during her 2016 presidential bid: her use of a private email account and server during her tenure as secretary of state.
(POLITICO 6/2/20)



a reply to: Flesh699



Thank you sir or ma'am!



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 06:40 PM
link   
She has a couple dozen lawsuits against her and her staff. JW really doesn't care. They are trying to get paid. They file a civil case they know they can prove and then win the case, normally in a settlement. Rinse and repeat. It's a business, nothing more.

She will settle out of court for a few million and that is that. JW will move on to the next paydirt case...meh. She's trying to fight it but it's futile. They have all the evidence. All she is doing is trying to stall them. Normally this works but JW has a lot of money. They can fight her the rest of her days and beyond. They really do not care. They just want the money.



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699
That doesn't back up what you described in the OP.

It is the same info I linked to. HRC wasn't there, there was no congresswoman grilling her and there was no media coverage.



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699

Seems plain enough, her lawyers went to court, but she wasn't on trial. It was a court application for FOIA records which had nothing to do with the Benghazi attack.

Perhaps you are remembering something else? Can you post a link that supports your recollection?



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Stop putting them so high on a pedestal perhaps? No one is perfect, just because snopes claims one way doesn't mean they are truth.
Snopes has a rather good record so far. But its up to you to use search engines to verify.
It doesn't matter how much you try to spin their way of portraying the truth, they weren't wrong in this instance.

Then again ats strikes again, anything relatively left leaning or not over the top right wing rhetoric is dismissed as garbage. Not surprised.



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Flesh699
That doesn't back up what you described in the OP.

It is the same info I linked to. HRC wasn't there, there was no congresswoman grilling her and there was no media coverage.


Found it.
youtu.be...


edit on fSundayAmerica/Chicago0908699 by Flesh699 because: Rut row waggie



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699
That is from 2015, not June 2, 2020.

HILLARY CLINTON TESTIMONY AT HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Flesh699
That is from 2015, not June 2, 2020.

HILLARY CLINTON TESTIMONY AT HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON BENGHAZI


Hmm. Wonder why it was live.



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699
The video in the link I posted says live in the upper right hand corner although it obviously isn't.




edit on 28-6-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Flesh699
The video in the link I posted says live in the upper right hand corner although it obviously isn't.





When I saw the video I posted it was streaming from fox but live. On their youtube channel that day. Must of been a rerun?
edit on fSundayAmerica/Chicago3909699 by Flesh699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2020 @ 09:36 PM
link   
audio transcript 6-2-2020
There's two to choose from.
🙄
Teleconference.

edit on (6/28/2020 by loveguy because: Oops spelling




top topics



 
21
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join