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

Wikileaks Hillary knew Saudis sponsored ISIS took money from them, and helped cover it up

page: 2
132
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Ah. Never mind, I was looking earlier in the article. I said I was getting tired


The Yahoo article, Hillary moneyman highlights new Saudi connection

Here's the part I read first (because it was at the top):


The Saudi contract with the Podesta Group, owned by veteran Washington lobbyist and Clinton campaign bundler Tony Podesta, calls for the firm to provide “public relations” and other services on behalf of the royal court of King Salman. It included an initial “project fee” payment of $200,000 last month and unspecified further sums over the course of the next year, according to documents recently filed with the Justice Department Foreign Agents Registration Act office.


I erroneously concluded that the initial project payment was upon completion of the deal. Then scrolling down to what Grambler excerpted, I see I was mistaken:


Last Sept. 4, Bill Clinton met with King Salman for what was described by one source as a “brief courtesy visit” at the Four Seasons Hotel. Two weeks later, on Sept. 18, the Podesta Group filed papers with the Justice Department reporting that it had been retained by an entity called “the Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court.”


My mistake!




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Fair enough. Just making sure we're reading the same thing!






posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemustcount on it




posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So is this going to bring down the neocon?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Not running on MSM that I've seen yet. Combine this with Obamas fancy Saudi gifts and it looks really menacing.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
no usual suspects here.... no marching orders yet?



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Great thread! S&F

A few observations:


According to the Yahoo article, it was actually in September of 2015, not 2014, so a year and a few weeks later.


Thanks for the comment.

As you already pointed out later, the yahoo article was written in 2015, but when it is referring to Bill speaking with the saudi king and the Podesta group representing them it says last September, hence September 2014.

This means that Hillary sent the email to John Podesta outlining how Saudi Arabia was sponsoring Isis, and roughly two weeks later Bill was meeting with the Saudi king, and two weeks after that the Podesta Group was an employee of the Saudis working on their public image!

This is unbelievable.


I am not going to repost the entire email you quoted to save some space, but I did read it and I will answer your points one by one.



1. This is 2014. Where is she getting intel? She was already out of office a year and a half by then.


Excellent point. I don't have the exact date, but according to this article, Hillary was leaving the State Dept. by Feb. 2013.
abcnews.go.com...

So she wrote the email about Saudis sponsoring Isis a full year and 8 months after this. This is again a striking point because it means one of two things.

Either:
1. Hillary knew all the way back at the latest in Feb 2013 that the Saudis were sponsoring Isis. Yet she still accepted a half a million dollar necklace from them, and tons of money for the Clinton foundation (up to 25 million), and had Bill and the Podesta group get paid to work for the Saudis.

This would also mean that Obama knew about this sponsor of Isis in at least 2013 (because Hillary was his sec. of state) and yet not only did nothing to have the Saudis stop, but buddied up to them.

Or:
2. Hillary was still receiving top secret intelligence that showed that the Saudis were sponsoring Isis when she wrote this email more than a year and a half after she left the State Dept. This still has all of the bad implications of her keeping the Saudis money, sending Bill and the Podesta group to cover for the Saudis, etc. but with the added detriment of the Obama administration leaking out classified information to a civilian!



2. What kind of foreign policy super-wonk is she? Did she write this herself? If so, frankly I'm impressed with the level of nuance and over all understanding of complex geopolitical machinery with a lot of moving parts.


It seems detailed, but I am less impressed by it as I am disgusted. I will get to more on the next question.



3. If this is real, it puts to rest a lot of other CT involving ISIS. It certainly sounds like they're interested in defeating ISIS and Clinton appears to have a coherent, 8-point plan. This run's contrary to theories that ISIS is a US-funded effort to overthrow Assad. Don't you think?


I do not think this puts those conspiracy theories to bed. In fact, to me it enhances them.

This shows that Hillary is not interested in cutting off the funding and sponsoring of Isis, and is instead interested in having an excuse to fight Isis all around the world, including in Syria.

Sure, she says in the email that we should apply pressure to the Saudis, but why would she then keep all of the money they gave her, all of the jewelry, and then send Bill and the Podesta group to run their PR campaign to cover up abuses they had been involved with.

This is not "applying pressure" as her email suggests, it is helping cover up the Saudi crimes! If she was really interested in applying pressure to the Saudis, its been over a year since she has sent these emails, what sort of pressure has been applied to them?

And here is the damning part, even if Hillary meant well, this is a clear violation, cut and dry, of the Logan Act.

Remember when the democrats were concerned about Trump violating the act?
www.washingtonpost.com...

Well this is an absolute slam dunk that she violated it if she was attempting to apply pressure to the Saudis.

For those that don't know, the Logan Act says that a private citizen cannot conduct US foreign affairs with another country.

So no matter what Hillarys intentions were, she is clearly sending Bill and the Podesta group to work with the Saudis whom she knows is arming Isis. These are private citizens conducting foreign affairs at the behest of the US government.

If you say this is not the case, then that means 100% that the Podesta group is not acting to put pressure on the Saudis for Isis, but is actually trying to cover for them using PR.




We really need to know how she knows this about Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Is it specific intel? Where did it come from? It certainly appears to suggest the possibility of an "open secret" that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are/were providing clandestine financing to ISIS. It also sounds like they want to stop that financing. Doesn't it?


I would love to know how she knew, but we are unlikely to get that information. But as I mentioned in response to your first point above, regardless of how she knew, it doesn't matter. She accepted the millions of dollars from the Saudis, she sent Bill to deal with them, and she sent the Podesta group to run a PR show for them.

Imagine that last part. What if Trump, who has been accused of cozying up to the Russians, sent an email that showed that he knew it was the Russians that did something horrible, liked hacked the US government. So instead of denouncing them, he send his lawyers over there to represent Russia and run PR for them, all the while accepting huge amounts of money from Russia.

The media (and us) would be outraged. Heck, they are outraged at much thinner connections between Trump and Russia.

But this is exactly what Hillary did. She sent her campaign managers brothers law firm to represent a country that she knows is sponsoring what is supposedly Americas greatest enemy, Isis. And she took millions upon millions of dollars from them.

To me, this is damning. I don't know how any Hillary supporter could ignore this.

I will answer the last part of your post in my next post.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

great job
posts like yours are what got me to sign up here in the first place



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian


I'm still digesting some of this but I encourage you to read that entire email. From the email, to me anyway, it doesn't sound like she's influenced by Saudi Arabia at all, it sounds like she views them as a chess piece. It's all very objective and calculated. I could be wrong. It's late and I'm a little tired! I'll check back on this thread and the morning and go back over everything.

Nicely done though!


Again thank you for the compliment.

So I am going to try to put this in the best possible light for Hillary, trying to give her the benefit of the doubt whenever I can, and see how that looks.

Again, this is the best possible interpretation of the facts for Hillary (at least that my feeble mind can come up with).

Hillary sends the email to John Podesta on August 17 2014.

She is very concerned about Isis and wanting to beat them, and even though she has been out of the loop she knows from her tenure at the state department that Qatar and Saudia Arabia are sponsoring Isis.

So in an attempt to pressure Isis, she sends Bill to talk with their King two weeks later. There is possibly some agreement reached that in exchange for stopping support of Isis, Hillary will have the Podesta group to make sure that no bad publicity comes out for Saudi Arabia.

She decides that returning all of the money that has been donated tp her from the Saudis would raise eye brows, so she decides to keep it.

Thats it.

Now even in this best case scenario, there are many problems. First, she is disseminating what I would assume to be classified information to Podesta, Bill, and the Podesta group.

Second, this is a clear violation of the Logan act. Just because she thinks she will be the next President, it gives her no right to deal with foreign governments like this.

Third, it proves she is helping cover up serious crimes by the Saudis. Even if she thinks its for the greater good, as a civilian, that is not her choice to make.

Fourth, she still kept the money, no matter what the reasons! She has been personally enriched GREATLY by a country that she knows is financing Americas supposed biggest enemy. No matter what her justifications are, this is unacceptable, and a slap in the face to every US soldier that has died fighting terrorism, and all of the people around the world that Isis has killed.

Fifth, it shows that Obama is doing a horrible job. Despite his secretary of state knowing in 2013 that the saudis were doing this, Obama has still partnered with them, and he is leaving a private citizen take matters into her own hands.

Now keep in mind, this scenario, as damning as it is, is what I see as the best case scenario for Hillary. This alone should disqualify her from being President (in my opinion).

By no means do I think this is the most likely scenario. I would say given the extreme wealth that the Saudis gave her, that this is exactly what it looks like, Hillary wanted the Podesta group to cover for the Saudis by being their PR lawyers.

I really appreciate you addressing this topic Ante, but I can believe not one other Hillary supporter (or not necessarily supporter but person that is skeptical of the Wikileaks on her) has had anything to say.

Of course the media is silent on it, but that is to be expected.

To me, it is becoming clearer and clearer that this story is huge, and should be proof that Hillary helped cover up the Saudis sponsor of Isis and got rich doing so, which should disqualify her to be President.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think that depends on if Trump's campaign puts this out on blast, and if the MSM actually picks it up...

Kind of gives some insight into why Obama wanted to veto the bill for victims of terrorism being able to sue the Saudis...



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler





The media is bananas over Trump possible connection to Russia.



That would be Bill and Hillary too
www.nytimes.com...


But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one. At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One. Continue reading the main story Related Coverage Opinion Editorial Candidate Clinton and the Foundation APRIL 23, 2015 Opinion Public Editor's Journal An ‘Exclusive’ Arrangement on a Clinton Book, and Many Questions APRIL 23, 2015 Recent Comments Carol B April 24, 2015 Brian Fallon is right. No one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as... Joseph Scott April 24, 2015 In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence... Van Snyder April 24, 2015 This underscores the fecklessness of canceling the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program in 1994, when it was an inch from completion, at more... See All Comments Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
www.breitbart.com...

Look up Uranium one



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler

Great thread! S&F

A few observations:


So on August 17 2014 Hillary is writing that she knows that Saudi is a state sponsor of ISIS, and says we should pressure them. The next Month, Bill meets with the Saudis, and two weeks later, the Podesta Group that is connected to the Clintons is hired to represent the Saudis.


According to the Yahoo article, it was actually in September of 2015, not 2014, so a year and a few weeks later.

Now let's look at the part of the plan where the statement in question can be found:

>> 4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the
>> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the
>> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders
>> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in
>> Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to
>> provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will
>> allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against
>> the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile,
>> avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best
>> temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving
>> forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence
>> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia,
>> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and
>> other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by
>> the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put
>> in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to
>> dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By
>> the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve
>> to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where
>> insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.

1. This is 2014. Where is she getting intel? She was already out of office a year and a half by then.

2. What kind of foreign policy super-wonk is she? Did she write this herself? If so, frankly I'm impressed with the level of nuance and over all understanding of complex geopolitical machinery with a lot of moving parts.

3. If this is real, it puts to rest a lot of other CT involving ISIS. It certainly sounds like they're interested in defeating ISIS and Clinton appears to have a coherent, 8-point plan. This run's contrary to theories that ISIS is a US-funded effort to overthrow Assad. Don't you think?

We really need to know how she knows this about Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Is it specific intel? Where did it come from? It certainly appears to suggest the possibility of an "open secret" that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are/were providing clandestine financing to ISIS. It also sounds like they want to stop that financing. Doesn't it?

I'm still digesting some of this but I encourage you to read that entire email. From the email, to me anyway, it doesn't sound like she's influenced by Saudi Arabia at all, it sounds like she views them as a chess piece. It's all very objective and calculated. I could be wrong. It's late and I'm a little tired! I'll check back on this thread and the morning and go back over everything.

Nicely done though!


Hillary and Bill, Kerry and wife, Obama and wife, they all got expensive jewelry and piles of money as gifts from the Saudis. They kept it all even after knowing the Saudis clandestinely provide support for ISIL or better known as Islamic State.

This is open TREASON. Impeachable offenses.

Trump just won the election. Next debate is going to be the end of the line for crooked Hillary.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
So far I am sort of frustrated. It seems many people are more concerned with dirty language than proof that a candidate took money from and tried to cover up a sponsor of Isis.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Don't be to hard on them, here or anywhere else. They are but simple minds, huddled together, being herded along by puppeteers.

That's really not meant to be offensive either, it just takes all kinds.

Great work on the thread though, should be top of the front page, even if it doesn't meet the posting rate/limit qualifications.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


I can believe not one other Hillary supporter (or not necessarily supporter but person that is skeptical of the Wikileaks on her) has had anything to say.

Of course the media is silent on it, but that is to be expected.


Should that have been "...I can't believe...?"

You have to remember that since this leak has just surfaced, they are still in the process of developing acceptable spin for this story. As soon as that is crafted you will see it disseminated far and wide amongst the many paid and unpaid mouthpieces.

Just like when the #stonetear story first broke. No one would touch it until Hillary's campaign had their 'official line,' on what the spin was to be. If you recall the first spin was, "we can't be sure it was him," and then ever since Comey the weasel admitted it in the congressional committee meeting, it's been silence on that whole thing.

Currently, the committee is awaiting the DoJ's response to their letter; there is a little over a week to go before the deadline they set for a response in that letter.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
So far I am sort of frustrated. It seems many people are more concerned with dirty language than proof that a candidate took money from and tried to cover up a sponsor of Isis.



Me too, with bill and HIllary's record, I don't understand the passion some poster have towards making this wicked women president.

It is frightening actually.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yeah I am the typo master. I still type with the old one finger method.

That should have said can't believe.

As for the rest of your post, sadly I think you are right.

You and others did a great job looking into the stonetear story, and it seemed as if most people didn't want to touch it, and instead wanted to parrot lines.

I say the following without trying to insult poeple whatsoever.

I think many people (myself included somethimes) don't want to think about these diificult issues, especially when it involves their team looking bad.

So they wait for an official response, and just use that to brush off these stories.

People instead want to focus on things that are easy to grasp, like foul language. So a thread about someone saying lewd things or a racial slur gets a ton of comments, because people can ra their heads around it.

That is why I really appreciate many of the posters here on ATS that delve into the sources and claims, rather they agree with me or not.

But I will say on this thread, there is almost an eerie silence.

I think this is a huge issue. This possibly proves Hillary engaged in high treason, aiding the enemies of America in exchange for an enormous amount of money and who knows what else.

But many posters seem to have no comment.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
"People instead want to focus on things that are easy to grasp, like foul language. So a thread about someone saying lewd things or a racial slur gets a ton of comments, because people can wrap their heads around it."

That was largely the motivation for my thread regarding the very basic character trampling of donald trump. Not because it's true or not, or because he's good or bad, that was never the topic.

It's the "simple" things, the easy to grasp things and the emotional things that work for the majority of people. A topic that requires no thought, graspable by just about anyone and best of all emotionally charged.

It's really why this type of stuff that you have posted a thread about will never really go anywhere. It requires too much thought.



posted on Oct, 11 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You're right on, I think.

Things like the locker room talk and Powell's d*cking bimbos tend to garner so much more attention because they play to the prurient nature of people, make for good laughs, and provide easy to grasp points.

What you've laid out in this thread is only a bit (for some a LOT) more difficult; it does, however, require that concepts like the transitive property in math be understood and many people are flummoxed when you have to take a few steps to show a connection. It's almost like once you make a point that requires more than two data points to correlate, you've lost the majority of people.

All of the above is a result of our deplorable education system that teaches to standardized testing rather than leaching how to learn. Rote learning does nothing to help in one's ability to deduce concepts from varying data sets but rather relies on simple memorization of 'facts,' that can then be changed to suite the agendas of the ones behind these initiatives.




top topics



 
132
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join