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.

 

George Soros Dictated Foreign Policy To Hillary While She Was Secretary of State (USA)

page: 2
53
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   

George Soros, whose own foundation has given between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation, told a mutual friend in May 2012 he was "impressed" by the level of access he was able to gain to Clinton while she served as secretary of state.

Soros apparently said he enjoyed the fact that he could "always" get a meeting or get on the phone with Clinton when he wanted to discuss his ideas for policies.

Clinton's official schedule indicated she met with Soros at the State Department in March 2012.


Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State





posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
August 10, 2016

Newly released Wikileaks emails reveal the cozy relationship between George Soros and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. Apparently George Soros told Hillary to get involved with the internal politics of Albania. Soros directed Hillary to “bring the full weight of the international community” and to “appoint a senior European official as a mediator.” Isn't that exactly what Hillary did, after receiving this directive from her #1 financial donor?

SOURCE: hiddenamericans.com...

I don't know much about George Soros, but from what I'm reading in other places, a civilian can ask for intervention a country's affairs, but the Secretary of State of the United States of America, is supposed to politely decline. Is this SOROS influence a "big forking deal?", or, is it a "What difference does it make at this point!?" ??

-Carewemust



Um. Did you read the email???

While Soros had access, it wasn't "direct" to Hillary -- it went through several people to get to her -- and why not?

Do you really think that people who know someone socially are NOT going to network if they have something that needs attention? I know a political figure in my state and I let her know about a situation I was having, next thing I know I get a call that the Governor has told the appropriate department to give me a call. It didn't change any laws or make any exceptions for me or give me "special treatment," but my voice was heard, and amazingly fast.

So, did Soros "dictate policy" to her?? Not from what I read in the email at all. There was no sense of "ordering" something to be done AT ALL. Soros directly knew of a situation in the world that would be of possible interest to the State Department.


Did Soros bring a concern to the State department?

Yes. He did. He sent an email through multiple appropriate channels which were forwarded to Hillary's State Department Staff. (GASP!!!! HOW DARE HE!!) So, that should tell you that, even secretly, he didn't have DIRECT access to Hillary. He wasn't picking up the phone and giving orders to her, he wasn't even emailing her DIRECTLY. I can't post the emails but if anyone goes and looks at them you will see that.

Please demonstrate your claim that he "dictated policy." All I see is someone getting access who is a known entity to the individuals of the State Department to explain a situation that he was observing and worried about, and then making recommendations for action based on his knowledge. If the State Department then acted on those recommendations, does it really mean that Soros "called the shots" as you are implying?? Or does it mean that they investigated and felt his recommendations were good?

Please explain.

- AB

edit on 11-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Very well said.

Perhaps I missed it, but was this email ever forwarded to Hillary? I did not see her name in any of the email "to" lines.

This appears to be a non-issue, but since Soros' name is involved, and Hillary's, a conspiracy must be concocted.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
from the email chain....


Below message is from George Soros for the Secretary. Understand his organization was sending through other channels as well.


"Other Channels" ?

Like maybe the Clinton Foundation systems.




posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jc333
Well, it appears that she followed his instructions.

www.balkaninsight.com...


Jc333, Are you saying that this article indicates that the United States got involved with Albania's internal affairs, after Secty of State Hillary Clinton received the communications/requests from George Soros?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


I don't know much about George Soros, but from what I'm reading in other places, a civilian can ask for intervention a country's affairs, but the Secretary of State of the United States of America, is supposed to politely decline. Is this SOROS influence a "big forking deal?", or, is it a "What difference does it make at this point!?" ??


What I find really amusing about this is the long standing conspiracy theory — one which you are contributing to with this thread — is that George Soros is somehow this great puppet master pulling the strings of Obama and now Clinton.

Did the email even make it all the way to Hillary?

Why wouldn't he just email Hillary directly if he has some sort of exclusive access or better yet, just give her a call? You used the same misleading language as the blog you got this from. Where is the dictating going on? I see Soros offering a couple suggestions and offering to use his organization's resources to provide independent analysis of a developing situation in Albania.

If this was anyone BUT George Soros, nobody would bat an eyelash. Because the email came from George Soros, it's just assumed to be some evidence of impropriety.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

Nine times Clinton Foundation donors got special access at State



Pesky facts.


Ethics are for little people!



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:09 AM
link   
This is further proof of 2 things:

1.) Hillary is a fascist despot...
2.) Hillary's supporters refuse to accept the truth regardless of an avalanche of facts...

-Christosterone



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone



1.) Hillary is a fascist despot...


What proof has this topic provided to say she is a fascist despot?



2.) Hillary's supporters refuse to accept the truth regardless of an avalanche of facts...


What facts? Can you even prove Hillary read this email from Soros?



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The fact his advice was followed what he suggested happened but dont worry Hillary will be President its manifest destiny.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Meldionne1
Sadly, She will get away with it...she will have some dumb excuse that everyone believes ....or say it's just a coincidence , like the 400 million dollars to Iran . ...I still don't know why she isn't in jail yet ?


Get away with what?


This is how your government has always worked. It’s called an oligarchy.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
a reply to: introvert

The fact his advice was followed what he suggested happened but dont worry Hillary will be President its manifest destiny.


How do we know his advice was followed at the direction of Hillary?
edit on 11-8-2016 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

If this was an isolated instance I would agree with you. But it's not, and it all feeds the pay to play narrative. Sorry but this is we got stuck with, the most corrupt candidate and possibly the dumbest one.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: elementalgrove

For SOME perhaps...not me.www.commondreams.org...

I just can't convince others very well,without cussing these days.



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

1. The Situation in Albania was bad. It was on the brink of "erupting into anarchy and chaos." Can you show how having someone bring it to the attention of the US Secretary of State was a BAD thing?

2. Were the actions taken by the International Community, including the EU and US, to stabilize Albania somehow wrong or bad for the people of that country?

Where is the scandal here? Who the frick cares WHO brought attention to it in the State Department?? If it was something that needed attention, and was within the scope of the State Department and its diplomacy efforts, please explain how it was a BAD thing???

How would it benefit the EU or the US if Albania deteriorated into madness? (Hint - It wouldn't)

How would it harm the EU or the US if Albania deteriorated into madness?

1. Well, firstly, we are allies with the EU, and to have an unstable country in the region is dangerous. Of course the EU wants stability. The US, if you will remember, sent former Gitmo inmates to Albania. (Albania is also an ally since the 1920's - see below!)

2. We have important treaties with Albania regarding the PREVENTION of PROLIFERATION of WEAPONS of MASS DESTRUCTION. Albania - US

3. We have made a considerable monetary investment in Albania to promote their stability and to promote Democracy in this islamic nation. We do this and guess what - they love us for it! Wow! A muslim nation that loves America!!! (i.e. diplomacy and nonmilitary options for peace DO work...who knew?)

4. Albania has helped us in the WAR ON TERROR by FREEZING the ASSETS of TERRORISTS, and shutting down NGO's that may have ties to terrorist networks, expelling extremists, "and providing military and diplomatic support for the U.S.-led actions in Afghanistan and Iraq." THEY ARE UNITED STATES ALLIES AND STRATEGIC ASSETS!!!

So...WHY WOULD'NT THE US SUPPORT THEIR STABILITY AND DEMOCRACY THROUGH THE STATE DEPARTMENT???



edit on 11-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Facts:




Chasing the Ghosts of a Corrupt Regime Gilbert Chagoury, Clinton donor and diplomat with a checkered past

The Clinton Connections

Chagoury, along with his wife and three of his children, were guests at a the Clinton's White House holiday dinner shortly after Chagoury gave nearly half a million dollars to a voter registration committee, Vote Now '96, according to a report in The Washington Post. (Chagoury would have been barred from donating directly to the Clinton campaign because he is not a U.S. citizen.) Since then, Chagoury and Clinton have traveled together and seen each other socially.

"Every one knows I'm friends with the Clintons," Chagoury says.


www.pbs.org...


The Clinton Foundation did not respond to emailed questions and repeated phone calls about the nature of Bill and Hillary Clinton's relationship with Chagoury. Former Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe, who, according to The Washington Post, was a sponsor of Chagoury's invitation to the White House in 1996, also failed to return phone calls. A spokesman for former Clinton political advisor James Carville, also a Chagoury acquaintance, said that Carville could not comment on the relationship.


Terry McAuliffe is currently under FBI investigation.
edit on 11-8-2016 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

What if instead of an email this scenario involved money. Wouldn't this behavior be suspicious of money laundering? The intent by Soros to pass along information is crystal clear. As to whom was the final recipient, we may never know, kind of like how money gets laundered, and disseminated to many, and the end agenda may be accomplished.

Those that launder money have it down to a science and get more clever at accomplishing their agenda. There is no definitive proof, but the means are there. I respect your position in that you say the allegation is lacking factual evidence, and my above case doesn't reflect my opinion, but it does open my eyes to the possibility of sending an email and the message being received without direct proof.


edit on 11-8-2016 by Boscov because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-8-2016 by Boscov because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I'm sure if the Koch brothers and Citizens Unites were dictating state department policy to Condi Rice you would have said the same thing...

Give me a break liberals....I'm so sick of being spit on and told its rain....
FYI, Hillary is spitting on y'all as well....and newsflash, it's not rain...

-Christosterone



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

If the Koch brothers had insight to a problem in a foreign country due to their business interests and communicated it through proper channels to the Secretary of State, Ms. Rice, and if that message was cogent and appropriate to the Sate Department and the diplomacy of the US then NO I would NOT have a problem with it.

I'm weary too. I give you facts and you call it being spit on. Seriously?

What part of US Albanian relations were harmed by the State Department taking informed action? (None. They were helped.)

Do you think Soros was the only source of this information, that EU counterparts and our own Ambassador could possibly have weighed in??

Go ahead. Dismiss everything because you are tired of liberals.
edit on 11-8-2016 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Why would a Secretary of State for the the United States of America need to be told of Albania and its distress by a reclusive billionaire???

Do you honestly believe Soros had Intel superior to that of Hillary's state department?

And if that is true, what does that say about Hillary's understanding of the world???
Seriously, Hillary needs a money shorting billionaire socialist to instruct her on state department policy...

Do you not see how preposterously disingenuous that is at the very least and criminally negligent at worst??
Imagine how obtuse one has to be to argue it is a positive thing to allow donors to influence policy based upon access granted from political bribery(read donations)...

This would be astoundingly funny watching liberals explain her despotic tendencies so predictably (and without question) were it not so tragic...

-Christosterone



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join