It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Donald Trump - Yes Puppet! Yes Puppet! - Part Two

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 04:48 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Beautiful work.
Now THIS is investigating a conspiracy.

a reply to: AboveBoard

And this is a great visual contribution.

Our Democracy, our votes, depend on informed voters. But it must be a citizenry informed with Truths and not lies, not wishful thinking or fantastical creations.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 05:05 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

So when it turns out she is actually involved with or knew about an elite child sex ring , will you still be crusading for her?

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:11 PM
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Maybe the investigation has to do with Bill and Hillary combined worth at close to 200 million dollars. Odd for a couple being in politics for 30+ years.

Bush Sr. is only worth around 30 million and he was in oil for God's sake.

Most presidents are worth well under 100 million. Because most presidents don't sell their influence.

That's a fair comment. It sure seems strange that the Clinton's have become near quarter billionaires after a lifetime of public service. The question is how much of that is the result of influence peddling while in office. How much of it is from whoring the Clinton name and notoriety? How much is from appointments owing to cronyism?

I'm not opposed to the FBI investigating the Clintons.

In other circumstances, I wouldn't be voting for Clinton. Though I wouldn't vote for 95% of all of the candidates under normal circumstances. I would never vote for Trump or Cruz for instance. I voted for Sanders in the primary and though I didn't think he had great economic policy — none of them do — he had a solid voting record in Congress (against Iraq War, against Patriot Act, etc) and perhaps more importantly, he can get through an entire speech without lying.

Yes, DWS was conniving against Sanders. The Clinton's made a mess of what was supposed to be the shining example of their good works — Haiti — and as SoS, Clinton/the Obama administration supporting a military coup in violation of our own laws. Operating a private email server was obviously a move to avoid transparency and even if she never sent or received a single classified document, wholly irresponsible.

I'm not a Clinton fan. The fact that Clinton shouldn't be President doesn't mean that Trump should be. That's a non sequitur. I realize how cliched it is to say Clinton is the "lesser of two evils" but that doesn't make it any less true. My opinion based on what I knew of Trump from before he entered the race was bad enough. Since then, it's only gotten substantially worse. I don't believe a single word that comes from his mouth. The whole "we know Clinton is bad, Trump is an unknown, what do we have to lose" argument falls flat for me too.

It seems to me that a lot of people, including folks on ATS, are content to stop thinking at "Hillary is evil" and let Trump get a pass which is just bizarre to me considering who Trump is. Making things worse, right from the gate he went hard on demonizing entire groups of people which is massive red flag. Look how Clinton's "half of Trump's supporters are in what I call a basket of deplorables" comment turned into hypocritical faux outrage en masse. So it's not like people can't conceive of what demonization is, they just choose to ignore it when they don't believe it applies to them.

Every time he oppened his mouth, stupid, bizarre and offensive things were coming out. Every time he took the Twitter it was some eye rolling affair. Worse yet, the media was in love with the spectacle. You'll see from my thread history that my Trump posts were pretty sporadic up until about the point of the DNC hack and subsequent release of emails through WikiLeaks. Unlike a lot of other lefties, I've never been a fan of Assange. I don't trust self-appointed people who are accountable to no one and who make unilateral decisions injecting themselves in geopolitics. As an American, it became very clear to me in 2010-2011, he wasn't out to do American citizens any favors. The fact that Guccifer 2.0 was pegged as a Russian before he even identified himself sealed the deal.

Two foreign actors colluding, deliberately or not, to say the outcome of an American election? Call me a hypocrite but while I know our own government has done far more than it's fair share of influencing (and worse), that doesn't mean I'm going to take the position of "oh well, that's what we get!"

I just couldn't believe that nobody was all over Trump for Manafort. He goes out and Breitbart News becomes Trump's Pravda? Ugh. It's Breitbart ffs.

Now this.

Sorry for the rant! I just started typing and kept typing.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:13 PM

originally posted by: goou111
a reply to: theantediluvian

So when it turns out she is actually involved with or knew about an elite child sex ring , will you still be crusading for her?

I'm not crusading FOR anyone. If it turns out that she's involved in a child sex ring, elite or not, I promise you that I will dedicate copious verbiage to damning the woman on ATS.

If it turns out that she wasn't and there wasn't any elite child sex ring, are you going to go around and apologize for every single time you insinuated that there was?

Honest question.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 06:57 PM
a reply to: network dude

how exactly do you know this? is it possible that the agent or agents who were initially looking at this found something they knew was a big deal? If Comey comes out with close to nothing after all this, his job and future is gone. He knows this. Unless you have been lying to us and you really are an insider.

Two things:

1. I don't know this to be a fact anymore than any of us know anything to be a fact that we didn't observe first hand. However it was reported by investigative reporter Michael Isikoff who has his own integrity and award winning career to be concerned with. He claimed three independent sources within the government "who had been briefed on the probe."

Yahoo News - Exclusive: FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe

When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.

At the time Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,” one of the officials said,

2. Did you read the letter? I'll type it up real quick here (source) my bold below:

In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.

Here's what he said in the leaked memo (my bold):

To all:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

The reporting on this has been atrocious. From the letter to Congress, the word "reopened" exploded onto the seen from nowhere. Then by the time it was coming out of pro-Trump talking heads it was "FBI has reopened criminal investigation" and by the time Trump was talking at rallies it had become even more embellished with loaded language and innuendo.

Now you're here saying:

"If Comey comes out with close to nothing after all this, his job and future is gone"

Would you be saying that if it had been accurately reported in the media? Agents working another case found emails that might be related. These might turn out to be emails to/from Weiner and Abedin @ Clinton server (or maybe they're not) but that would be enough to warrant looking through the emails.

That's what due process is for though right?

Personally, I hope they find thousands of emails that weren't given to the FBI. If they turn out to be something, impeach her. If the relevant emails turn out to be about personal s#, then release a statement to that effect.
edit on 2016-11-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:14 PM
Fox has completely walked back the claim.
Trump won't but Fox has.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:16 PM
a reply to: FauxMulder

all we can do is speculate and debate about the different leaks that come out what feels like every 10 minuets.

I agree. Given what we actually know about the emails, all we can do is speculate and both "sides" will have a tendency to believe what they want.

Part of what I was arguing in the OP was of course that these "leaks" are likely not direct from FBI agents to the media at all. That's certainly part of the narrative though isn't it? That a rogue faction of FBI agents who are being shutdown by the DOJ are rebelling against the corrupt system to get out "the truth." Strangely, a lot of this narrative is built on the claims of Guiliani and Kallstrom who claim to have spoken to hundreds of agents who are so angry they're revolting. That's suspicious to me as well.

It seems far more likely that the sources are two people who are wholly biased and have been overtly "leaking" rumors and hearsay to the same media outlet for months. The same people who are playing a very large part in pushing the narrative that these NY FBI agents are so up in arms that they're willing to risk their careers to leak details to the media.

I could of course be wrong but Barrett made a very strong case in my opinion, and did so using the men's own words.

Time may tell. It may not. Lot's of disinformation is spread and time goes on and people forget and it goes unaddressed. Hell, even when it does, a lot of the time nobody bothers to go back and update with the facts. I tend to believe that this will stick in enough people's minds that one way or the other, we'll get some resolution as to the veracity of the statements.

What if Trump wins and it turns out that it was all complete and utter bulls# after all? Then what? "Oh, our bad, sorry we swayed the election!" There won't be any do over. The stakes are far too high for this sort of malfeasance.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:31 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:33 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66


Notice how your critics here are latching on to the ... rather humorous contention that you're drawn connections between people that are "too tenuous."

The connections aren't tenuous at all but admittedly, the implications of those connections are of course open to interpretation. I do think that looking at the network of connections as a whole, certain things are very clear. Maybe I should have put together a graphic.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:34 PM
a reply to: Ksihkehe

A civilian is GENETICALLY incapable of getting to the point

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:49 PM
a reply to: AboveBoard

One thing I didn't really emphasize in the OP as I was rushing to put it together on the fly between conference calls was that Schweizer was actually interviewed multiple times by FBI agents regarding the book.

More importantly about Clinton Cash, here are some points I didn't emphasis/missed:

- The book was published by Harper which is owned by Rupert Murdoch as of course is Fox News.
- The movie adaptation was co-written and produced by Stephen Bannon.
- The book has been debunked to hell and back:

Then there have been the errors. The most cringe-inducing involves a passage in the book in which Schweizer draws from a press release from TD Bank in which the Canadian financial institution supposedly announced its divestment from the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline. The author suggests TD Bank tried to persuade the US government to back the pipeline using Bill Clinton as a conduit – an attempt that eventually failed when Obama kicked the decision down the road until after the 2012 presidential election, leading to TD Bank’s decision to divest.

Yet the press release was revealed to be a fake the same week it was circulated.

Similarly, Schweizer attempts in the chapter on the Haiti earthquake, Disaster Capitalism Clinton-Style, to link three lucrative speeches given by Bill Clinton in Ireland for a total of $600,000 to the awarding of a major contract in Haiti to Digicel, the telecoms company owned by Irish magnate Dennis O’Brien who had arranged Clinton’s appearances.

But as Buzzfeed pointed out, Bill Clinton was not paid on those occasions.

Perhaps the most seriously misleading element of the book involves the purchase by the Russian State Atomic Nuclear Agency (Rosatom) of a Canadian company, Uranium One, that had a large stake in US uranium output. Schweizer claims that a “central role” in the decision of the US government to approve the purchase was played by Hillary Clinton at the State Department at the same time as large donations were being made to the Clinton Foundation by individuals directly involved in the deal.

Yet in this case, as Time has shown, the State Department was only one of nine members of the inter-agency committee that made the final call, and even then there is no evidence that Clinton herself ever took part in the discussions.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:50 PM
a reply to: desert

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:51 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

It's been rumored that the stories they gave the NY bureau were bought and paid for by Donald trump and written by Breitbart and that is why the FBI didn't act on them. They were too bizarre. But someone in the NY office believed them and
was obviously a trum supporter. When his contribution was rejected he let fly the Weiner email crap to Guilliani. After that Comey had no choice.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:58 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Excellent work. I'm thinking they didn't bother to read what you wrote. That's a lot of investigative journalism my friend. Of course it casts a shadow over the trump organization so don't expect too many fans for your efforts.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:01 PM
a reply to: FauxMulder

It's pretty obvious that Breitbart is supplying the stories which is why the bureau rejected them.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:17 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Don't be sorry, it was all on point and eloquently put.
I now understand you're line of thinking.

I don't support Trump, i think he would be a waste of our anti establishment card as we may only get one.

I just hope if Hillary wins she gets impeached.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 08:28 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, you've given a thoughtful defense of your position and you've put a great deal of work on it. I appreciate both. I'm glad you did because I frankly I was writing you off. I'm happy to be proven wrong. I'm only struggling to see how this disinformation is really that shocking.

The newest, and in my opinion the most absurd, claims are about occult practices and massive child trafficking rings. As I've said before there is enough actual concrete evidence of real crimes that we don't need to be entertaining outlandish ideas.

Do you think it benefits the Trump campaign to have this outlandish crap floating around? Maybe it does, but as a conspiracy, what if all these child trafficking and pagan ritual things are just to take the heat off actual crimes? In three months it becomes clear the child trafficking and pagan nonsense are shown to be nonsense. By then everybody forgets about the million in foreign money that rolled in.

I don't know. We've had the curtain pulled back on a terrible mess and I don't think any of us like it. Trump is the incarnation of the contempt people are feeling. It's popular to say it's racism and misogyny, but I think it's more pure contempt.

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:10 PM
a reply to: theantediluvian

arguing about what might be in those e-mails is pointless. What we already know exists is damning enough for her. after a while, punishment is redundant. But that is for a jury to decide. So I look forward to justice being served.


posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:19 PM
a reply to: Ksihkehe

So, I read part 1 as well as this. What is the point? People are connected? What illegal is happening that involves Trump? How is this a conspiracy? Wealthy donor and supporters change who they support when their guy gives up.

You clearly put a lot of time into this, but I don't see where any of that effort paid off. Essentially it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy, or is it a vast alt-right conspiracy?

There are multiple areas of concern for me. I think the most glaring are of course that there are mainstream media outlets reporting misinformation and likely flat out disinformation as being credible information from reliable sources within the FBI. Granted, Baier himself craftily cited the sources so that he could attribute the claims to the FBI without saying that his sources were actually FBI agents/officials. However, that was a distinction so obfuscated by the wording that it was immediately disregarded.

The claims being made are extremely serious and they're being made in the week before the election with the aim of influencing voting.

I assume that you believe in due process and that you understand its importance. I also assume that you understand the implications of the FBI (and the authority it commands as the FBI) being attached to the claims. (I'm not saying that in a snarky way) If it came from active FBI agents directly, it's egregiously unethical conduct though it doesn't appear that this is the case.

It appears that Baier's sources are actually not within the FBI. I'll have to check again to see if the nature of the sources has been clarified by Baier yet but when last I looked, they had not. However, given his own language, it seems highly probable.

Given the advanced knowledge of the pending "leaks" and the repeated statements of Giuliani and Kallstrom throughout — made first and most often to Fox News — I believe it's likely that the are the sources. That would mean that the sources are intimately involved with Trump/his campaign and that one of those people, Rudy Giuliani, is financially profitting from his relationship with the campaign through Robert Mercer.

Then there's the fact that if Bret Baier reported things that were flat out untrue regardless of the sources and that other claims are completely unsubstantiated. As an example of the latter, how can it be said that there is a 99% certainty that five or more foreign governments hacked the email server when in the very same claim, it's stated that although they are 99% certain, there are no forensic traces.

1. What makes them sure if there is no forensic evidence? Psychic vibrations in the ether?

2. Where does the five number even come from? 99% certainty indicates compelling evidence and including the number "five" reinforces this notion. Yet even the claim is ultimately vauge — "at least five" — so is it five or is it one hundred or is it none?

3. How would the New York agents even be aware of this? They've had no involvement in the investigation of the email server.

How could any journalist report such an explosive claim and put the FBI's name to it during the week the presidential election if he wasn't absolutely certain of the veracity of the claims and ready to defend them?

A presidential election hangs in the balance so of course the stacks could hardly be higher.

Somewhat less alarming (or maybe ultimately more alarming since the man could be elected) is that Donald Trump's campaign was taken over by not one, not two but THREE operatives with deep connections to Robert Mercer. Robert Mercer is clearly using his money to change the world. With Robert Mercer, it's possible that the Brexit vote would have failed. Now the election has his fingerprints all over it.

Have laws been broken? I'm not a legal expert. I'm a guy posting on a political forum on a conspiracy themed website.

I do however find it very concerning that the candidate has had his "persona reconfigured" as the Mercer-connected crew has taken over his campaign and brought into the campaign Cambridge Analytica which sounds like a cutting edge superweapon of information warfare.

Cruz partners with donor's 'psychographic' firm

Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is working closely with a little-known company owned by one of his biggest donors that uses nontraditional “psychographic” analyses of voters to try to win them over with narrowly targeted micro-messages, POLITICO has learned.

The company, Cambridge Analytica, has sent staff to Cruz’s campaign headquarters in Houston to help set up an intensive data analysis operation.

Cambridge Analytica is connected to a British firm called SCL Group, which provides governments, political groups and companies around the world with services ranging from military disinformation campaigns to social media branding and voter targeting.

So far, SCL’s political work has been mostly in the developing world — where it has boasted of its ability to help foment coups. Cambridge Analytica entered the competitive U.S. political data market only last year.

Cambridge Analytica is owned at least in part by the family of the press-shy New York hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, multiple sources confirmed to POLITICO. The Mercers this year provided the lion’s share of the $37 million raised by a quartet of unlimited-money super PACs supporting Cruz’s campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. Cruz’s presidential campaign has contracted with Cambridge Analytica to provide data services, and the company has had talks with at least one of those super PACs, according to sources.

Then there's the fact that apparently the whole NY FBI investigation was SPAWNED by the Robert Mercer funded book that has been torn to shreds under scrutiny and interviews with the author whose salary is paid to an unknown degree by Robert Mercer.

It's a lot to consider and I composed the each of the OPs in a single sitting and writing straight through so probably not my best composition either and I'm sure I could have presented it better but I wanted to get it out there for people to read.
edit on 2016-11-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 09:27 PM
a reply to: network dude

It's possible of course but isn't it more likely that any emails are going to be the same as before and the outcome would be the same as it was in July?

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in