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.

 

Clinton Foundation Took Huge Bribe From Russians to Buy Hammond Ranch...

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Is it possible the FBI is now expanding it's investigation to the Clinton Foundation because of email evidence it found of this deal in Hillary's server?


Very Very possible.

Hillary Shared An Email Network With The Clinton Foundation

I'm Melting!

The wonders of HD technology on a 1939 movie !!!






posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:36 PM
link   
If Bill can get $500,000 per speech kick backs from foreign governments while Hillary was Secretary of State...Can he get $1M per speech when Hillary is POTUS?



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Now, if they could only make the Wicked Witch look like hillary clinton it would be even more fun to watch.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Flatfish

Sadly her record of been a sell out back in the 70s when she was nothing but a lowly lawyer is enough for me to know that she is as full of crap now as she was back in the seventies, conniving, with no regard for the law, confiscating public records and writing fraudulent letters, she was fired for her behavior.

That is enough for me to see the character of that women, she will do anything to get her way.

She was dirty then and she will be the dirties president in the history of this nation.



OK, I get it now. You can't stand Hillary, so she must be guilty of any and every thing anyone decides to accuse her of.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a Hillary fan by any stretch of the imagination, but my dislike and/or distrust of someone is one piss-poor excuse for assuming their guilt without any evidentiary proof.

The term "Witch Hunt" does come to mind though.






In Hillary`s case ,no hunt needed the witch has been found!



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Sunwolf

Yes, but instead of a bucket of water to melt her, they'd have to throw a bucket of fake play money at her.



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: Sunwolf

Yes, but instead of a bucket of water to melt her, they'd have to throw a bucket of fake play money at her.


Standard Federal Reserve Notes qualify.

(^_^)




posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

ha! even better!!



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Granite

Rock n Roll.
2nd line.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Oh, dear, so typical, "I can not stand the politician X or O" either, but, but, but heck disregard their dirty pass to justify the dirty present.

Hilarious.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire
Nah....we already had an iron lady...Margret Thatcher.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Granite

What I follow, from the NY Times on this, is that the group of people that sold the company that became Uranium One, to Canadians, was later taken over by a Russian company. Some of these people donated 2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. There are no facts to show this is related. The source in the OP links to the NY Times article from April.

NY Times

That is NOT a lot of money for that foundation. I would think if it was a payoff, it would be larger.

The original reporter suggests there is a connection, but there was no obvious 'bribe'. It is a charitable foundation. It is not their personal money and it is not used for campaign funds.


The Clinton Foundation did not own the ranch. A lot of agencies signed off on the sale.


H. Clinton was SOS at the time of the sale, the sale of which needed SOS-level approval under US law. Her "foundation" got a $2.3 million donation and her husband a $500k speaking engagement, and she approved the sale. Although technically separate legal transactions, you'd be hard pressed to say they weren't related. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

And as for "other agencies", I'm sure when the SOS "approves" something in the current government, no one would dare disagree.

edit on 24-1-2016 by LanceCorvette because: -



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: PresidentCamacho
Facts / the truth do not matter to Hillary voters.


I am not seeing any Hillary voters here, that I know of, based on the posts. The point of this thread is an article about how a Russian owned company ended up with land in the US with a lot of Uranium. I found it an interesting read. I didn't find it a reason to insult entire groups of people or yell out political one-liners.

I think the point is that several people on ATS will continue to pop up and derail the threads that have damning, incontrovertible proof of impropriety. With any possible outlandish changes of the subject, or denial of what's right in front of us.

It's mind boggling, grinding, and annoying.

So yes, people will comment on it, and they certainly should. When someone behaves outrageously and inexplicably, they deserve to be called out. And embarrassed publicly, however the chips may fall.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: LanceCorvette

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Granite

What I follow, from the NY Times on this, is that the group of people that sold the company that became Uranium One, to Canadians, was later taken over by a Russian company. Some of these people donated 2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. There are no facts to show this is related. The source in the OP links to the NY Times article from April.

NY Times

That is NOT a lot of money for that foundation. I would think if it was a payoff, it would be larger.

The original reporter suggests there is a connection, but there was no obvious 'bribe'. It is a charitable foundation. It is not their personal money and it is not used for campaign funds.


The Clinton Foundation did not own the ranch. A lot of agencies signed off on the sale.


H. Clinton was SOS at the time of the sale, the sale of which needed SOS-level approval under US law. Her "foundation" got a $2.3 million donation and her husband a $500k speaking engagement, and she approved the sale. Although technically separate legal transactions, you'd be hard pressed to say they weren't related. Nudge nudge, wink wink.

And as for "other agencies", I'm sure when the SOS "approves" something in the current government, no one would dare disagree.


In days gone by, when character and ethics were in vogue, no politician or leader would even allow these things to happen at the same time, or within 10 years of each other. Decent people would either step down from their post, or make sure that their selfish, private gold-digging just was put on hold.

Incredible that anybody would dare try to parse out and approve of any of this. You'd be less challenged (and less ridiculous) to find a way to approve of everything that Manson or Dahmer did.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 08:27 PM
link   
if there be uranium there why the hell is it allowed to be sold to foreign governments canada or russia i thought strategic materials used in the nuclear industry were not allowed to be sold to any foreign powers+



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Did the Clinton Foundation buy the Hammond ranch?
Or was it the Russians?

edit on 1/24/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Granite

What I follow, from the NY Times on this, is that the group of people that sold the company that became Uranium One, to Canadians, was later taken over by a Russian company. Some of these people donated 2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation. There are no facts to show this is related. The source in the OP links to the NY Times article from April.

NY Times

That is NOT a lot of money for that foundation. I would think if it was a payoff, it would be larger.

The original reporter suggests there is a connection, but there was no obvious 'bribe'. It is a charitable foundation. It is not their personal money and it is not used for campaign funds.


The Clinton Foundation did not own the ranch. A lot of agencies signed off on the sale.


Sshh....facts shouldn't get in the way of a good story.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Did the Clinton Foundation buy the Hammond ranch?
Or was it the Russians?


Clinton signed off on the Russians in trade for the donation,
and after approved, the Russians kicked another half Mil to Bill for a speech.

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships
So, the Clinton Foundation bought the Hammond Ranch.
Thanks for clearing that up.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That is not what I said actually, but what difference,
at this point does it make?

Who cares right? Maybe it was a video that caused the whole thing.
Thanks for making me laugh.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Granite
a reply to: marg6043

Precisely...

We have hammered her very hard on ATS for more than eight years and no results to show for it.

What is it going to take to stop her is a very good question.

Great post!!


Her Achilles heel is the e-mail scandal. That's the one, serious, substantive chink in her armour.

However, the clown car that is the American right wing is so busy getting wood about guns, Benghazi, Fast and Furious and any other number of bad TV movie distractions that it is giving her a free pass.

It's a bit like Dubya running the US economy into the ground, creating a new generation of global terror and losing a lot of his nation's international influence and authority while Fox News made him out to be the best president ever.

Ignore the smoke. Look for the flames.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join