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

Podesta relative earned six-figure fees lobbying Clinton's State Dept. during his tenure there

page: 1
20

log in

join
share:
+3 more 
posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
This is how it works in the Clinton Cabal...or is it the Mainstream Mafia.

1) Qatar supports ISIS (just by the way)
2) Qatar wants to buy advanced U.S. missile defence systems, Apache attack helicopters and other military materiel
3) Ratheon (a big defence contractor) wants to sell said U.S. Military goods to Qatar
4) These kinds of foreign military sales have to be approved by the State Department
5) Hillary becomes Secretary of State
6) Hillary has a "Charitable Foundation"
7) Hillary has a former POTUS as her spouse
8) Hillary has a network of aides, confidants, bundlers and fundraisers at her beck and call (all part of the Clinton Organized Crime Family)
9) John Podesta (at that time)...yeah the same John Podesta who is having all of his emails released right now... held dual titles at the State Department: as a "senior advisor", and as a member of a foreign policy advisory board Secretary Clinton created.
10) Ratheon hires John Podesta's sister-in-law (Heather Podesta), along with John Merrigan and Matt Bernstein (both major donors or bundlers to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 campaigns). This guaranteed them access to Hillary Clinton.
11) Qatar, meanwhile, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation. They hired Bill Clinton to make 2 speeches that paid him between $500,000 and $1 million dollars. They gave Slick Willy another $1 million as a birthday gift...aaahhh, isn't that sweet?
12) The $19 billion dollar sale from Ratheon to Qatar was...wait for it - approved by Hillary Clinton! Yeah!!
13) Heather Podesta, John Merrigan and Matt Berstein were paid $460,000 in Lobbying Fees by Ratheon
14) Hillary Clinton left the State Department
15) Ratheon released Podesta, Merrigan and Bernstein...as they no longer had direct and personal access to the Secretary of State.

This is how it is done folks. This is pay-for-play.

The ISIS supporting nation of Qatar gets advanced U.S. Military gear, the Clintons, the Podestas, and assorted others in the Clinton Crime Family get rich(er).

There are still a lot of Americans who need to wake up, pay attention, and then make the right decision on November 8th.

Pode sta's Sister-in-Law Cashes in with Clintons

Bill Clinton gets Rich, while ISIS-Supporting Qatar gets U.S. Military Gear




posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Bro I'm sure it's just coincidences. The Clinton's and the DNC would never be involved in such debauchery.

edit on 28-10-2016 by avgguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
Bro I'm sure it's just coincidences. The Clinton's and the DNC would never be involved in such debauchery.


Yes, and I am sure that if one spends the time to examine in detail the more than $150 million that Bill and Hillary have been paid to "make speeches" in recent years, that one will find quite a few more coincidences.

Funny how these coincidences always seem to fatten up the Clintons' bank accounts, enrich Clinton associates, help foreigners and foreign Governments...whilst damaging the United States in one way or another.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

I'm with you. They think that being a "public servant" is using the public as servants.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

You left out "Congress has to approve all major sales of weapons to foreign governments."

Might be important to some who are interested in the truth.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mobiusmale

You left out "Congress has to approve all major sales of weapons to foreign governments."

Might be important to some who are interested in the truth.


Not exactly.


"This summary reviews the process and procedures that currently apply to congressional consideration of foreign arms sales proposed by the President. This includes consideration of proposals to sell major defense equipment, defense articles and services, or the re-transfer to third party nations of such military items.

Under Section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), Congress must be formally notified 30 calendar days before the Administration can take the final steps to conclude a government-to-government foreign military sale of:

- major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more,

- defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more,

- or design and construction services valued at $200 million or more.

In the case of such sales to NATO member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration can proceed with the sale. However, the prior notice threshold values are higher for sales to NATO members, Australia, Japan, or New Zealand. Commercially licensed arms sales also must be formally notified to Congress 30 calendar days before the export license is issued if they involve the sale of:

- major defense equipment valued at $14 million or more,

- or defense articles or services valued at $50 million or more (Section 36(c) AECA).

In the case of such sales to NATO member states, NATO, Japan, Australia, or New Zealand, Congress must be formally notified 15 calendar days before the Administration is authorized to proceed with a given sale. As with government-to-government sales, the prior notice threshold values are higher for sales to NATO members, Australia, Japan, or New Zealand.

Furthermore, commercially licensed arms sales cases involving defense articles that are:

- firearms controlled under category I of the United States Munitions List

- and valued at $1 million or more

must also be formally notified to Congress for review 30 days prior to the license for export being approved.

In the case of proposed licences for such sales to NATO members, Australia, Japan or New Zealand, 15 days prior notification is required.

In general, the executive branch, after complying with the terms of applicable U.S. law, principally contained in the AECA, is free to proceed with an arms sales proposal unless Congress passes legislation prohibiting or modifying the proposed sale. Under current law Congress must overcome two fundamental obstacles to block or modify a Presidential sale of military equipment:

- it must pass legislation expressing its will on the sale,

- and it must be capable of overriding a presumptive Presidential veto of such legislation."



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Sounds pretty exact to me.

Are you claiming that the sale of material to Qatar DIDN'T have Congressional approval?

I mean, you long-winded quote makes it seem like you're saying something ... but are you?



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm saying that congress has almost no say in weapons sales. They have to be notified, but have almost no chance in hampering the transaction.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm saying that congress has almost no say in weapons sales. They have to be notified, but have almost no chance in hampering the transaction.


Then you're patently incorrect in that statement.

Your own source clearly demonstrates otherwise.

(Speaking of your source, don't you think you should provide a citation? Wouldn't want to appear to be plagiarizing would you?)
edit on 28-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mobiusmale

You left out "Congress has to approve all major sales of weapons to foreign governments."

Might be important to some who are interested in the truth.


True enough.

I expect (would hope), though, that Congress might have been reluctant to support the sale had they known that:

a) Qatar was supplying weapons (and financial support) to ISIS
b) Qatar had made significant payments to both the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton
c) Ratheon had hired a close relative of a senior State Department official...with long-standing ties to both Bill and Hillary Clinton...to act as their lobbyist for this transaction

Or maybe not...maybe this would have just been seen as (corrupt/criminal) business as usual. Maybe senior members of Congress were on the gravy train on this as well. Who knows?
edit on 28-10-2016 by mobiusmale because: typo



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale
... and if Congress didn't know what it needs to do its job, perhaps it should hold investigations to inform itself on real world issues rather than merely abusing it's non-Constitutional powers to harass political rivals.



new topics

top topics



 
20

log in

join