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

a reply to: Grambler

Don't forget that Hogan Lovells is where Cheryl Mills and Loretta Lynch both worked prior and DLA Piper is where Comey's brother works.

When looking at the Clintons backgrounds, scandals populate every nook and cranny. Is it any wonder that skeletons keep getting tripped over?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Grambler

Don't forget that Hogan Lovells is where Cheryl Mills and Loretta Lynch both worked prior and DLA Piper is where Comey's brother works.

When looking at the Clintons backgrounds, scandals populate every nook and cranny. Is it any wonder that skeletons keep getting tripped over?

Wow, great catch. The deeper we go the more disgusting it becomes.

From www.rt.com...

While the US categorically denied arming the terrorist organization in order to fight IS, State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters, “there are those – not the US – who back various opposition groups in Syria, who might also seek to arm them,” and that would lead to escalation.

Podesta is not the first person to accuse Saudi Arabia of funding IS. In July, Britain’s Foreign Affairs Sub-committee urged Gulf states to apply pressure and legal barriers to prevent royal family members from sponsoring extremist organizations.

It's still being denied and not denied........


Also in case anyone is as slow as I am, this would indicate that Podesta was among the people feeding Clinton intel.



Another snippet:

Aiding the Islamic State is a scandalous offense, but in terms of overall geopolitical damage, it’s not even the worst thing Saudi Arabia is doing right now. For years, the Saudis have backed Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria before it declared independence a few months back—no act of moderation, the group remains just as jihad-crazed as ever. In contrast to ISIS’s Tarantino-esque gore, Fatah al-Sham is craftier, winning Syrian hearts and minds by setting up food drives and medical centers. It’s currently the single most powerful faction of the rebellion, with which it’s been coordinating for years. It’s also designated as a terrorist group by the United States.

Fatah al-Sham’s sly burrowing into the Syrian landscape constitutes a far more perilous long-term threat than ISIS’s flash-in-the-pan atrocities. And the Saudis were aiding this group even back when it was still affiliated with al-Qaeda. Our next president needs to apply pressure on Riyadh and put a stop to this. She won’t.

rare.us...

This video, is worth a gander (the MSM will not look past their given script,) I think Styx touches on the topic of this thread and more. Just Consider.

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

Seeing it is gaining traction. Saw it on Fox and Yahoo.

a reply to: JinMI

Its being discussed on fox. Pence is discusding all the leaks now.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: JinMI

Its being discussed on fox. Pence is discusding all the leaks now.

Watching the tale end of the interview.

I have seen the main stream media start to cover the fact that the email shows Hillary knew that Saudi Arabia sponsored ISIS, and seen that she took boatloads of money from them.

(In fact, I guess Hannity is discussing this in the next segment).

But no one has put together on these outlets that 2 weeks after Hillary sent this email, she sent Bill to meet with the Saudi King, and two weeks after that had the Podesta group start covering for the saudis.

This second part is I think the msot damninng part of the story.

Don't get me wrong, taking money from what is effect ISIS is disgusting and should be focused on.

But to help cover up this, that is treason.

This outweighs every other issue in the election.

Treatment of Women- Hillary helps sponsor a group that rapes women routinely and enslves them.

Foreign policy- Hillary is helping ameircas biggest enemy.

Economy- Whats her plan, to take more millions from ISIS?

Gay rights- HIllary is working with a group that beheads gays.

Police and crime issues- Hillary is breaking the most serious of laws by aiding americas greatest enemy.

And so on.

Yet people that have read this thread here and had no response are on other threads mocking Trump and saying that things like lewd comments are a reason to vote for Hillary>

It is amazing.

a reply to: Grambler

Having been on vacation over the past weekend and watching the coverage on Fox, I have been seeing them as controlled opposition.

Also there's there's this:

bigthink.com...

Cover your interests.

In my opinion hillary abetted EVERY isis terror attack from 2014 forward. Every bombing. Every beheading. Every mass murder. If isis inspired or carried out the attack she is responsible because she COULD HAVE STOPPED IT.

Since June 2014, when ISIL proclaimed itself to be the Islamic State, according to a running count kept by CNN, it has "conducted or inspired" over 70 terrorist attacks in 20 countries, not including Syria and Iraq. Attacks outside the boundaries have left at least 1,200 dead, and over 1,700 injured.[1]

She did nothing but abet isis.

Found some more great info.

The group is one of a half-dozen or so the Saudis have retained for lobbying services in Washington, D.C. The Podesta Group’s key man working the Saudi account is David Adams, the former assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs under Hillary Clinton during her tenure at the State Department. Other Clinton campaign bundlers have ties to the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

Recently, Hillary Clinton said on Fox Business News that as president she wouldn’t “stand in the way” of Saudi Arabia, among other Middle Eastern nations, purchasing portions of leading American banks.

www.americanlibertyreport.com...

The whole page is a pretty good source.

originally posted by: JinMI
Found some more great info.

The group is one of a half-dozen or so the Saudis have retained for lobbying services in Washington, D.C. The Podesta Group’s key man working the Saudi account is David Adams, the former assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs under Hillary Clinton during her tenure at the State Department. Other Clinton campaign bundlers have ties to the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Morocco.

Recently, Hillary Clinton said on Fox Business News that as president she wouldn’t “stand in the way” of Saudi Arabia, among other Middle Eastern nations, purchasing portions of leading American banks.

www.americanlibertyreport.com...

The whole page is a pretty good source.

Great find with this!

You are right, this whole article covers much of what has been covered here and more.

More connections between Hillary and the Saudis after she knew they bankroll ISIS>

a reply to: Grambler

The Saudis and Qatar's support for ISIS has been in the public domain for some time and as such is hardly a revelation. The subject is covered in the book War by Other Means by Robert D. Blackwill and Jennifer M. Harris. Perhaps to be more accurate the matter is covered more indirectly in the book . Qatar had or is funding elements involved elements involved in the Syrian Civil War in a effort to a influence the outcome in their favor. These groups joined or in time became a part of ISIS.

originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: Grambler

The Saudis and Qatar's support for ISIS has been in the public domain for some time and as such is hardly a revelation. The subject is covered in the book War by Other Means by Robert D. Blackwill and Jennifer M. Harris. Perhaps to be more accurate the matter is covered more indirectly in the book . Qatar had or is funding elements involved elements involved in the Syrian Civil War in a effort to a influence the outcome in their favor. These groups joined or in time became a part of ISIS.

Thank you for the book recommendation I will check it out.

Three points on this.

1. Even if you are right, do you not agree that this still disqualifies Hillary to be president; selling them arms, accepting money from them, etc.? Doesn't this outweigh anything Trump has done?

2. We now have proof that Hillary knew they were sponsoring ISIS. Before she could deny it, but now we know she knew. This is new.

3. We now know that not only did Hillary sell them arms and take money from them, but we have a timeline that shows her direct connection to covering up for Saudi Arabia.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I just want to take a second to commend your balanced perspective on this new information. I feel the exact same way and when I raised these questions with someone very opposed to the Clintons, I was immediately shut out. I think your posts reflect the contexts of international diplomacy which is really complex, and I don't think painting entire countries as either "good" or "bad" based on varied aspects of their policies is realistic at all.

So long story short, who knows who has the upper hand here, but I do think Hillary could be playing a game of chess and we don't know what all the pieces are.

I also think that if this is the case and there is a longstanding negotiation in place with the ME, there is no way that's going to change regardless of who is president. Even if it's Trump, there would be far too many pieces beyond his control.

originally posted by: ravenshadow13
a reply to: theantediluvian

I just want to take a second to commend your balanced perspective on this new information. I feel the exact same way and when I raised these questions with someone very opposed to the Clintons, I was immediately shut out. I think your posts reflect the contexts of international diplomacy which is really complex, and I don't think painting entire countries as either "good" or "bad" based on varied aspects of their policies is realistic at all.

So long story short, who knows who has the upper hand here, but I do think Hillary could be playing a game of chess and we don't know what all the pieces are.

I also think that if this is the case and there is a longstanding negotiation in place with the ME, there is no way that's going to change regardless of who is president. Even if it's Trump, there would be far too many pieces beyond his control.

I too appreciated Antes post and yours as well.

I understand the idea of how complex foreign relations are, and how there are sometimes relationships that need to be had that are unsavory.

But I think this situation is beyond that.

Lets assume for a moment that for whatever reason Hillary needs a close relationship with the Saudis and so she has to cover for their sponsorship of ISIS.

How is it necessary for her to personally accept tons of money from them to do this? Couldn't she help them without getting the $500,000 necklace?

And I think that it is far more likely that these secret deals are not being done for the benefit of the normal people. We see how the elites use financial policies to enrich themselves, so why wouldn't they use foreign policy for the same.

I think we have to takes these facts at face value. If not, how could we ever make a reasonable decision on who to vote for?

How could support for a group that beheads gay, takes child sex slaves, and commits genocide be a good thing?

If we ignore this because it could be part of a gran chess game, where would we stop? It would be anarchy! It would justfy having connections to any dictator, no matter how heinous there crimes.

So although I agree with you on the complexity of foreign policy, I will not allow that to justify not holding Hillary accountable for these actions.

originally posted by: Grambler

Three points on this.

Fire away.

1. Even if you are right, do you not agree that this still disqualifies Hillary to be president; selling them arms, accepting money from them, etc.? Doesn't this outweigh anything Trump has done?

Clinton should be in jail for having classified info at home on a unsecured server. You might say this is yet another reason why she shouldn't have even been a candidate for the presidency. Based on the farce that was the GOP Convention Trump doesn't even want to be president.

2. We now have proof that Hillary knew they were sponsoring ISIS. Before she could deny it, but now we know she knew. This is new.

IMO Hillary Clinton personifies Richard Nixon.

3. We now know that not only did Hillary sell them arms and take money from them, but we have a timeline that shows her direct connection to covering up for Saudi Arabia.

People don't care about such things until the crap hits the fan. I don't think the majority people will care until the onset of global conflict in the not to distance future. Ultimately the Saudi Regime has sown the seeds of it's own destruction. Iran will be eyeing up the Saudi Oil fields after they have taken control of post war Syria.

a reply to: xpert11

I agree with pretty everything you posted here. The email scandal infuriates me because not only did Hillary get away with these crimes, but even worse the entire DOJ and FBI is now involved in the cover up.

And I agree with you that people don't care about this stuff until it is too late.

I and others were discussing earlier on this thread how people just ignore stuff like this because it requires a certain amount of thinking.

It is easier to wrap your head around a slurs or lewd comments, and so that what people focus on.

And to some degree even ATS proves that. I have brought this up to many people today that are defending Hillary, and it gets almost no response. Its not even like people are saying it isn't true.

Its as if they are waiting for someone else to look into it a prove its not true, and then they can parrot that answer.

In the mean time, this is ignored and were back to talking about tax returns and lewd comments.

But I think by showing people this information that it does show some people how corrupt not only Hillary is, but the whole establishment. It a battle of numbers, and every person that starts to see these facts is one more closer to ending this craziness.

a reply to: Grambler

Its as if they are waiting for someone else to look into it a prove its not true, and then they can parrot that answer.

Biggest hope for that IMO was Theantedalluvian, and you seen where he was at. Biased but well read and puts real effort in most posts/threads.

It's as if it doesn't exist. Remarkable.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Grambler

Its as if they are waiting for someone else to look into it a prove its not true, and then they can parrot that answer.

Biggest hope for that IMO was Theantedalluvian, and you seen where he was at. Biased but well read and puts real effort in most posts/threads.

It's as if it doesn't exist. Remarkable.

I think Ante is great, and he is probably no more biased than me (just on the other side). Boyth of us may see things through a lens, but we both will admit when we are wrong or when something is bad for our side.

I have to be honest, I love when he comments on my posts, it keeps me honest.

I thought he had great contributions to this thread. The fact that someone I respect such as him even admits that this looks real bad is very telling.

a reply to: Grambler

I think bias is the proper adjective to use. Doesn't have to be a dirty word!

I agree. Also to have zero detractors or arguments is...frightening.

Wondering if this is just going to be buried. Nothing that I've found has put together the timeline you have.