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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING! Proof That Benghazi Was Preventable?

page: 9
140
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
LMAO at the kool-aid drinkers who flagged without reading, kinda like Trump.




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Steak

Nice pivot dummy.

I know that in 2005, Bill Clinton went with the chairman of UrAsia (Giustra), a Canadian company, to Kazakhstan, essentially to facilitate a deal for UrAsia to purchase mineral rights to uranium fields in Kazahkstan from Kazatomprom. That same year, the chairman donated millions of dollars from his own foundation and committed another $100 million to a Clinton Foundation project. He also hosted a celebrity fundraiser that raked in something like $15 million in donations.

In 2007, UrAsia merged with Uranium One, a South African company and the newly formed company took the name Uranium One and was headquartered in Canada. During that deal, Giustra, the conduit for 97%-98% of the money that we're talking about, sold off his interest in the company at that time for something like $45 million. The new chairman, Tefler, donated a smallish amount (under a million) from his own charity in 2007 to the Clinton Foundation. This is all before Clinton was Secretary of State of course.

In 2009, Kazatomprom's chief executive and a few of his underlings were arrested and charged with embezzling funds from Kazatomprom. The allegation by two of the political parties in Kazahkstan was that the arrests were politically motivated and I seem to remember that — suprisingly — Russia was behind it (there's actually a US diplomatic cable about it leaved by WL ironically enough). The arrests and cable leak led to uncertainty that caused the Uranium One stock price to tank. The company contacted the US Embassy and the Canadian government and asked for help in Kazahkstan to insure that they weren't going to lose their access to the uranium there. An emissary was dispatched to interface with the Kazahkstani government to get assurances.

If memory serves me, it was also in 2009 that Rosatom purchased a 16% stake in Uranium One. Before, during and after the period, Tefler's charity continued to donate to the Clinton Foundation, however the amounts totaled what? $3-5 million over 5 years? Something like that.

At any rate, Rosatom (the state-owned Russian uranium company) decided to increase their holdings to 51% in 2009 or maybe early 2010. At about the same time Bill Clinton gave a paid speech in Moscow for half a million. The same folks have paid several world leaders to speak and there's no evidence of a connection to Rosatom. At any rate, because Uranium One has rights to about 20% of the uranium fields in the US (who produces 2% of the world's uranium), the deal had to be approved by the CFIUS (created by a Ford EO) which is comprised of heads of departments representing security, commerce and state.

The only one who can override the CFIUS to veto a deal is the President. There were 9 votes. HRC as SoS was 1 vote. There's no evidence that she advocated for the deal. It's also important to remember that this time incoming Obama administration was engaged in the "reset with Russia" and trying to improve relations.

It's also important to realize that the US is a net importer of uranium and that the NRC has to sign off on any exports of uranium from the US. The result? AFAIK, no uranium has been exported to Russia or anywhere else from the US because of this deal. I think in hindsight, CFIUS should have rejected the deal considering that one of Russia uses the price of various fuels for leverage.

That said, there's absolutely no truth to the statement "Clinton sold 20% of our uranium to Russia!"

Now step up your game and update your uninformed opinions.


Typical liberal - start with the insults when you're wrong - I'm thru with you.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:44 PM
link   
touché
edit on 11-10-2016 by ssenerawa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Dragoon01

While not a direct comment at you at the time, I digress here is the issue at hand, there are legions of people like you who just won't vote. For whatever dribble of a reason they might have, but just maybe if these people would realize hey guess what there are more than two parties here in the states and find a candidate that fits there moral and political leanings things could change, but instead we get it doesn't matte hohum better prepare for the end of times....

People wonder why things don't change well here is your sign its people being lazy ineffectual complainers not getting up and being the change they want to see.

I will never understand people who cry and moan about the state of the nation but do nothing to make it better.

Now while these comments once again are not directly aimed at you, but if the shoe fits......



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Bloodydagger

then you have no room to talk.

Trump is an idiot. This place -- ATS -- is witnessing the abject meltdown of his fan club. Delusional and spectacularly ill-informed. Oh, and deplorable. Yep.


Man you've devolved into a smug, holier than thou commentor lately.

Not voting in what, according to dozens and dozens right here on ATS itself, is supposed to be a selection as opposed to an election means you have to go sit in the corner and shut up? Or is it because somebody hasn't bathed in the Kool-Aid and jumped to your side of the fence that bothers you so much?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Steak

Nice pivot dummy.

I know that in 2005, Bill Clinton went with the chairman of UrAsia (Giustra), a Canadian company, to Kazakhstan, essentially to facilitate a deal for UrAsia to purchase mineral rights to uranium fields in Kazahkstan from Kazatomprom. That same year, the chairman donated millions of dollars from his own foundation and committed another $100 million to a Clinton Foundation project. He also hosted a celebrity fundraiser that raked in something like $15 million in donations.

In 2007, UrAsia merged with Uranium One, a South African company and the newly formed company took the name Uranium One and was headquartered in Canada. During that deal, Giustra, the conduit for 97%-98% of the money that we're talking about, sold off his interest in the company at that time for something like $45 million. The new chairman, Tefler, donated a smallish amount (under a million) from his own charity in 2007 to the Clinton Foundation. This is all before Clinton was Secretary of State of course.

In 2009, Kazatomprom's chief executive and a few of his underlings were arrested and charged with embezzling funds from Kazatomprom. The allegation by two of the political parties in Kazahkstan was that the arrests were politically motivated and I seem to remember that — suprisingly — Russia was behind it (there's actually a US diplomatic cable about it leaved by WL ironically enough). The arrests and cable leak led to uncertainty that caused the Uranium One stock price to tank. The company contacted the US Embassy and the Canadian government and asked for help in Kazahkstan to insure that they weren't going to lose their access to the uranium there. An emissary was dispatched to interface with the Kazahkstani government to get assurances.

If memory serves me, it was also in 2009 that Rosatom purchased a 16% stake in Uranium One. Before, during and after the period, Tefler's charity continued to donate to the Clinton Foundation, however the amounts totaled what? $3-5 million over 5 years? Something like that.

At any rate, Rosatom (the state-owned Russian uranium company) decided to increase their holdings to 51% in 2009 or maybe early 2010. At about the same time Bill Clinton gave a paid speech in Moscow for half a million. The same folks have paid several world leaders to speak and there's no evidence of a connection to Rosatom. At any rate, because Uranium One has rights to about 20% of the uranium fields in the US (who produces 2% of the world's uranium), the deal had to be approved by the CFIUS (created by a Ford EO) which is comprised of heads of departments representing security, commerce and state.

The only one who can override the CFIUS to veto a deal is the President. There were 9 votes. HRC as SoS was 1 vote. There's no evidence that she advocated for the deal. It's also important to remember that this time incoming Obama administration was engaged in the "reset with Russia" and trying to improve relations.

It's also important to realize that the US is a net importer of uranium and that the NRC has to sign off on any exports of uranium from the US. The result? AFAIK, no uranium has been exported to Russia or anywhere else from the US because of this deal. I think in hindsight, CFIUS should have rejected the deal considering that one of Russia uses the price of various fuels for leverage.

That said, there's absolutely no truth to the statement "Clinton sold 20% of our uranium to Russia!"

Now step up your game and update your uninformed opinions.


Typical liberal - start with the insults when you're wrong - I'm thru with you.


Pretty common with some, yeh.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: 0zzymand0s

So true. I think those 28% are the hardcore, true believers. Not just GOP do-or-die, but authoritarian followers. They were kept in check for 150 years in both parties. Now that they are combined in one party, given political power, there is nothing to act as a check.

As for the rest of us, yeah, we were pretty much immune to Trump's sales pitches. And, of course, he only presented one side to the public in his adventures, so we missed his dark side. When he got over his head in politics this time around, his dark side came out.

I've seen some pretty crazy a## people run for POTUS over the years, either as major candidates or minor, but at least I could have a good laugh with most of them. With Trump, he's the craziest and scariest a## of all time. Nothing to laugh at here, only fear to see him spew nonsense and lies to my fellow citizens who cheer him on. He really is the dark side of the Force.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


There's only one problem folks:

Donald Trump is a tremendously stupid person who repeats whatever anyone says to him or puts on a piece of paper in jams in his stubby-fingered, orange-hued hands — including the disinformation from his pro-Putin, Kremlin-connected, Eastern oligarch serving handlers ("advisors" — whatever) — as well I'm sure as his new debate coach, Steve Bannon, provider of 2nd debate talking points.

I stopped reading after that. You want to impress people leave out the name calling.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Steak


Typical liberal - start with the insults when you're wrong - I'm thru with you.


Are you "thru" with me? Lol. Run along dummy. Come back if you manage to find a clue stumbling around in the dark.
edit on 2016-10-11 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
what difference at this point does it make?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
a reply to: theantediluvian

We deny ignorance around here.

There is NO proof that Russia is involved in this election at all.

Quit pushing propaganda.


HOLY CRAP...You must be kidding right? Apart from the SAME security firm that handles Trump Campaign email security examining the leaks and fingering Russia? Apart from the NSA, CIA fingering Russia? Apart from the idiots actually leaving Russiian FSB signatures on some of the leaked Material? Apart form independent hackers all over the globe tracing it right back to the Kremlin?

No...It's a "400 lb guy sitting on his bed".
edit on 11-10-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
DP
edit on 11-10-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Great OP I'll admit. After reading through the thread and watching the video it sounds as like you caught trump not vetting information. Doesn't really sound like a lot more. Sounds like a news company trying to be a story breaker by rushing a story, being able to break stories brings in traffic, but they were wrong.
Yea bad on him, I'll admit it.
Considering what's coming out in the leaks right now, I'm glad you guys found something to feel good about.

Reminder/catch up to other posters, the OP does not disprove or prove hillary's negligence during the Benghazi attack. That is not what this is about.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ghostrager
a reply to: theantediluvian

So, Eichenwald trolled a the Russian newspaper Sputnik and Trump took the bait....embarrassing for him.

But you also claim that it was "disinformation from his pro-Putin, Kremlin-connected, Eastern oligarch serving handlers ("advisors" — whatever)"

Which one is it? A setup for Trump or a Kremlin propaganda tool?


Sputnik (Russia's media propaganda outlet) published a story where they edited one of the leaked emails to falsely combine Eichenwald's story as if it was text from Blumenthal to HRC.

Once caught...Sputnik pulled the story without comment.

But the strange thing is that Donald had the (False) story off of Sputnik's website and touted it at the rally...But Sputnik had only very briefly posted the article and then pulled it, right around the same time as Trump's rally where he touted it..

It was like someone gave him the fake story before it went online.

EICHENWALD: Trump Recited False Info at a Rally from Russian Disinformation Op. How did he get it?
www.dailykos.com...

Trump Appears to Have read a Leaked Clinton email Doctored By Russian Media
www.businessinsider.com...

Trump Apparently Quotes Russian Propaganda To Slam Clinton On Benghazi
www.npr.org...

It's possible they found the article when it was briefly up on sputnik...minutes before he went on stage at the Rally...but strange..



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: Grambler




But if it is a complete forgery, then this cast doubt on all of the leaked documents.


Which would cast doubt on Assange.

What I'm having a hard time doing is getting around the logic of how Russia can expect Trump to not get called out on hoax? You don't disseminate false hoods to get an upper hand during an election.

I will say it more fits a pattern of Left wing conspiracy but I will not go there only remember Hillary and her almost entitled attitude when she said the opposite. Johnson is looking better but the only way to beat an evil Clinton appears to be with a loud mouth boorish type, then so be it. After all a lot of people liked Rodney Dangerfield's and Don Nickles' humor.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
Awesome thread as always


Wonder how many flags were a result of people just reading the title and not the O.P lol


I flagged it for it's shear brilliance. These type of OP's, for either side, are grand humor in a time of vile partisanship. AND it does expose two possibilities and a huge question. Either Trump was duped by the Russians or the Dem's and why would any do it if they wanted him?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Steak

The door's over there.

Your pithy one-liner doesn't conceal the fact that you've failed to substantively address any of the details. Further, while antidiluvian may have lost their temper in calling you a "dummy", you've gone on to insult all liberals everywhere.

I'd say antidiluvian's expression of frustration with you (which was immediately followed by facts) is the lesser of evils, here.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Steak

Nice pivot dummy.

I know that in 2005, Bill Clinton went with the chairman of UrAsia (Giustra), a Canadian company, to Kazakhstan, essentially to facilitate a deal for UrAsia to purchase mineral rights to uranium fields in Kazahkstan from Kazatomprom. That same year, the chairman donated millions of dollars from his own foundation and committed another $100 million to a Clinton Foundation project. He also hosted a celebrity fundraiser that raked in something like $15 million in donations.

In 2007, UrAsia merged with Uranium One, a South African company and the newly formed company took the name Uranium One and was headquartered in Canada. During that deal, Giustra, the conduit for 97%-98% of the money that we're talking about, sold off his interest in the company at that time for something like $45 million. The new chairman, Tefler, donated a smallish amount (under a million) from his own charity in 2007 to the Clinton Foundation. This is all before Clinton was Secretary of State of course.

In 2009, Kazatomprom's chief executive and a few of his underlings were arrested and charged with embezzling funds from Kazatomprom. The allegation by two of the political parties in Kazahkstan was that the arrests were politically motivated and I seem to remember that — suprisingly — Russia was behind it (there's actually a US diplomatic cable about it leaved by WL ironically enough). The arrests and cable leak led to uncertainty that caused the Uranium One stock price to tank. The company contacted the US Embassy and the Canadian government and asked for help in Kazahkstan to insure that they weren't going to lose their access to the uranium there. An emissary was dispatched to interface with the Kazahkstani government to get assurances.

If memory serves me, it was also in 2009 that Rosatom purchased a 16% stake in Uranium One. Before, during and after the period, Tefler's charity continued to donate to the Clinton Foundation, however the amounts totaled what? $3-5 million over 5 years? Something like that.

At any rate, Rosatom (the state-owned Russian uranium company) decided to increase their holdings to 51% in 2009 or maybe early 2010. At about the same time Bill Clinton gave a paid speech in Moscow for half a million. The same folks have paid several world leaders to speak and there's no evidence of a connection to Rosatom. At any rate, because Uranium One has rights to about 20% of the uranium fields in the US (who produces 2% of the world's uranium), the deal had to be approved by the CFIUS (created by a Ford EO) which is comprised of heads of departments representing security, commerce and state.

The only one who can override the CFIUS to veto a deal is the President. There were 9 votes. HRC as SoS was 1 vote. There's no evidence that she advocated for the deal. It's also important to remember that this time incoming Obama administration was engaged in the "reset with Russia" and trying to improve relations.

It's also important to realize that the US is a net importer of uranium and that the NRC has to sign off on any exports of uranium from the US. The result? AFAIK, no uranium has been exported to Russia or anywhere else from the US because of this deal. I think in hindsight, CFIUS should have rejected the deal considering that one of Russia uses the price of various fuels for leverage.

That said, there's absolutely no truth to the statement "Clinton sold 20% of our uranium to Russia!"

Now step up your game and update your uninformed opinions.


Typical liberal - start with the insults when you're wrong - I'm thru with you.


Actually, the OP began with a well researched thread showing that Trump jumps at any garbage 'sources' thrown at him if he thinks it will be of benefit to his campaign. Time and time again his followers completely lap it up, and throw out insults at anybody who dares to challenge their 'great leader'.

You have done nothing to disprove this.
edit on 11-10-2016 by cuckooold because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I dont know if anyone has brought this up, but what is the excuse why help was not sent, or Amb. Stevens was not pulled out??

It is starting to look like, from the emails, that Hillary sold arms to bad guys from CIA warehouse and Stevens found out, or threatened to pull the plug. Its looking to me like "Death by terrorist", murder.

Someone please school me......



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Man you've devolved into a smug, holier than thou commentor lately.


Devolved? No.

(Also, 'Man'? No.)

Holier than thou? I don't believe in your god, so there's no "holy" or "holier" about it. I do, however, believe that I am better educated than you are....so, we could say 'better educated than thou', if you like.
If that works.

"Commentator" I guess is fair enough.
You don't like my educated opinion and statements?

They stand as posted. "Smug" is a subjective term. I would say I'm "confident."
edit on 10/11/2016 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
140
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join