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

"Bill Clinton Inc." (the Clinton Foundation) turns out to be a money laundering front after all

page: 3
85
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: flatbush71

Do you also wonder how much the Trump campaign and Breitbart are paying folks to make the threads?

Ever notice how the same graphics appear so rapidly in multiple posts?

Interesting, eh?



+4 more 
posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: snarfbot
a reply to: Gryphon66

please, the opie presents evidence of corruption and you swooped in to defend it. that's the behavior of a ctr stooge, if you aren't actually on their payroll then you should stop, because at least they get paid for it.

and your most recent post is just a verbose personal attack, (stupid right wingers) (let the grown ups talk) how would you like to me to respond to it?


Presents evidence of corruption? The comments of a former employee? Yeah, that's about the standard of "evidence' that most of you require.

You can respond however you are able. Don't start things you can''t finish, chief.


okay chief, from the linked article:

When top Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band wrote the memo, he was a central player at the Clinton Foundation and president of his own corporate consulting firm. Over the course of 13 pages, he made a case that his multiple roles had served the interests of the Clinton family and its charity...... Band wrote the memo in 2011 to foundation lawyers conducting a review of the organization amid a brewing feud with the Clintons’ daughter, Chelsea Clinton, who was taking a stronger role in leading the foundation and had expressed concerns about Teneo’s operations.


to which you reduced to "the comments of a former employee." if it no longer meets your standards of evidence, that's your own fault. of course you were able to dismiss it easily because you have already changed it into something else. your basic argument is "look how silly this thing is, this stuff these fools are considering evidence" but the thing you're holding is one that you created.
edit on 28-10-2016 by snarfbot because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: snarfbot

Hey chief, you can parrot responses too, eh chief?

And look at you, you quote something that backs up what I've been saying now for three posts: this entire thing is based on the comments of an ex-CLinton employee.

It's not a matter of whether it meets my standards of evidence, it's a matter that the hearsay evidence of disgruntled former employees is rarely taken as gospel by reasonable rational people.

The rest of your post is just disjointed mumbling bordering on illiteracy.

You've already managed to bore me. Best.

edit on 28-10-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: snarfbot

Was this from an article written in the Wall Street Journal?


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

oh so you're done then, you're bored of defending your claim that this leaked memo to foundation lawyers is not acceptable evidence?
edit on 28-10-2016 by snarfbot because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mobiusmale

No, I'm not finally admitting anything. YOu and your kind can only argue via straw man and trying to put words in others mouths. For the record, however, I've noted on multiple occasions that both Clintons are successful polticians and that means that they are far, far away from saints.


Look, I know it is hard for you to come right out and say it...you work so hard to try to sell "nothing to see here", but saying that the Clintons are "far, far away from saints" is just code for saying that you know they are shady, that they are enriching themselves by way of their "public service" - and that you simply choose to excuse this behaviour.


Neither you nor anyone else has proven "vast criminal behavior" on the part of the CLintons. In fact, after 30 years of attempts by the right-wing in every way possible, there are still no convictions.


Well, it helps when you buy off the FBI and threaten (or collude with, whichever) the DOJ...I am pretty sure that the Clintons have files on everybody that would have made J. Edgar Hoover green with envy.

Lack of convictions is not proof of innocence. Their time will come.


Whether Hillary Clinton "needs" to be President is a matter of opinion. You favor Trump, and you favor allowing him to have extra-legal powers to do so. You are exactly the core-authoritarian I have always claimed that most right-wingers are. You're all excited because you think that now is the right time for your kind, and you're willing to say whatever you need to to forward that agenda.


No, no "extra-legal" powers needed. Just good and honest police work, followed by open and fair trials for everybody involved in the criminal conspiracies (that have the Clinton's at the top of the Crime Family).

There is a very large difference between "authoritarian" and "criminal justice". If the American criminal justice system is allowed to operate properly - without influence from corrupt and corrupting politicians - that is all that will be needed to bring the Clinton's to account.


You need to stop with the illusions that you (and yours) aren't in favor of anything other than a right-wing fascist takeover of the American Republic.

It's quite obvious to many.


Very colourful...a "right-wing fascist takeover". Right. How about, I am in favour of the rule of law - and making politicians, of any stripe, accountable for their actions...including corruption.

If Trump does indeed drain the swamp, there are quite likely a number of Republicans that will have a day of reckoning as well. This problem is not as partisan as people seem to want to believe.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: snarfbot
a reply to: Gryphon66

oh so youre done then, youre bored of defending this claim that this leaked memo to foundation lawyers is not acceptable evidence?


Ever meet a grammar manual you didn't like?

The leaked memo by a former disgruntled employee you mean?

Duh.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
Work that propaganda machine, less than 2 weeks left before it all falls apart.



Ten days, twenty one hours, the polls open on the east coast.

Commencing count down engines on.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

Well ya got ten days to prove a crime. Better get busy.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

washington post its the one linked in the op



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale

In rough order of your "presentation" ...

I don't work hard to do anything except expose rampant right-wing lies and fallacies.

I suppose you feel the same way about Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc. enriching themselves on their "public service"?

Or is it just Democrats that shouldn't make money?

Provide the evidence that the FBI has been bought off.

Provide the evidence that the DOJ was coerced.

What's that, you can't? You can only offer more right-wing garbage propaganda?

Lack of conviction, indictment and/or arraignment certainly does prove innocence in this country. You can believe whatever you wish.

Just "honest and good police work" ... sure, reminds me of the Stasi.

Actually, there's little difference between authoritarianism and all the cavalcade of "law and order" justifications. The American justice system is working properly. Director Comey was quite clear, for example, in stating that no one in 99 years has been charged under the espionage acts as the Kangaroo Congressional Court would like to do. In America, we don't use the justice system to go after our political enemies ... at least, unless you're promoting the kind of Fascism that Mr. Trump appears to favor.

YOu're not in favor of the rule of law. The rule of law states that due process will be followed; you're already convicting the Clinton's based on your beliefs.

TL;DR - "BULLSH#T"



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: mobiusmale
Too much politics revealed that's true. Let me know when you get to the criminal part.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   
If I read it correctly I think Morning Joe on MSNBC was talking about this yesterday...

If MSNBC is talking about it and not dismissing/mocking it, that should make folks pause.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: snarfbot

The truth will out.

You're not permitted to call a member a shill. How about a time out ?

It could happen.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

your arguments are weak, yes i forgot apostrophes, and no, your attempts to discredit the source are not compelling.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

How many palms has trump greased?

Keep trying meanwhile I'm picking out my inauguration ball gown.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
www.wsj.com...



The obvious question is where are the prosecutors? (For that matter, where is Lois Lerner when you need her?) Any nonprofit lawyer in America knows the ironclad rule of keeping private enrichment away from tax-exempt activity, for the simple reason that mixing the two involves ripping off taxpayers. Every election lawyer in the country lives in fear of stepping over the lines governing fundraising and election vehicles. The Clintons recognize no lines.





This is how the Clintons operate. They don’t change. Any one who pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting up the nation for all the blatant corruption that will follow.


Wow
Did not expect to see things like this about the clintons until after the election.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, a disgruntled former employee has not-so-nice things to say about his boss?

And his "big reveal" is that politics and big money are intricately involved with each other?

The shocks here just keep on coming.



This and more. Big Money in government? It's a given in this corporation run world. How to stop it? Bust the corporations, stop giving them amazing tax deals. (Also watch every price for every consumable, and every durable good skyrocket.)



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yup that's it.
Creepy laugh as the white house cellar door creeks open. Thump thump, trump hits the dirt floor, the lock clicks and the lights go out.



posted on Oct, 28 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
www.wsj.com...



For that matter, why aren’t the IRS and prosecutors already on the case? Any normal foundation has to keep records to show it is separating its nonprofit activity from any for-profit business.


The WSJ calling for an investigation?




top topics



 
85
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join