It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ALSGoes4th
Wow, with all the Trump and Pizzagate investigation I complete missed how much the CF was in turmoil.
Chelsea it would seem is/was cleaning house.
Check out this scolding!
Wow, didn't know we couldn't link to WikiLeaks.
This site amazes me xD
This interdisciplinary course on Innovation in Government and Society will blend perspectives from management, public policy, and law in exploring why communities must innovate in the delivery of public services and how ideas from the public sector, private sector, and civil society are shaping the future of public management. The course will include hands-on work to help advance innovation in communities in developing countries or areas affected by natural disaster or war, in partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This course will meet according to the School of Management calendar. Enrollment limited to six law students. Permission of the instructor required. Also MGT 866b/GBLS 697b. E. Braverman.
Note: This course will meet on the following dates: January 27, February 9 and 10; March 2 and 3; April 13, 14, 27, 28, May 4.
originally posted by: BlueAjah
The reports back as far as October saying that Braverman sought asylum at a Russian embassy are interesting.
If someone had evidence against the Clintons, and had been called out as a mole, and if that someone firmly believed that Clinton was about to become president-elect... that would make anyone with common sense a bit afraid.
And knowing that Clinton controls the Justice Department, and knowing what has happened to others who became their enemy, it makes sense that the only path to safety would be with a country who would not be friendly with Clinton.
originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: BlueAjah
Okay, what's the other evidence?
Multiple people all citing each other in a circular echo chamber also doesn't count.
Does Braverman even know or care?
I know - how about you give him or Neil Brown a call and report back to us. Clearly you are concerned with his safety.
Maybe that was the reason behind the expulsion of the Russian diplomats . He may be in hiding and they are trying to flush him out where ever they think he might be
Just because his husband is going on with life does not mean that Braverman is not in FBI witness protection custody or in asylum at the Russian embassy.
originally posted by: gottaknow
Regardless of this individual thread, I'm forever done with considering Snopes a reliable source for fact-checking.
I've been noticing their ever-increasingly swing to the left as time goes by and several "fact-checks" didn't add up.
There's no way a small familial team can "check" so very many claims thoroughly enough to debunk anything.
Plus, since THIS news came out, it finally put the Kibosh on the site for good for me.
I'm not cementing my truth or not vote on a ragtag group of sleazy hicks.
Eric Braverman, the Clinton Foundation CEO from 2013 until 2015, has apparently been missing since October. His absence has fueled speculations in the blogosphere but so far has been ignored by the media.
Some speculate, with good reason, that Braverman may have gone into hiding after an email mentioning his name was released by Wikileaks on October 22 of this year. In the March 2015 email exchange, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told Clinton campaign manager and confidant John Podesta there was a mole within the Clinton Foundation. Pedestal in his reply told Tanden the mole was Braverman.
originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Noncents
Haven't we still reversed the burden of proof here though???
It used to be that when someone made a claim they had to prove it before it was believed. Now we have to disprove every half baked theory to say it's false.
Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?? Believing any crazy theory until it's proven incorrect will cause all kinds of problems rather than the other way around.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Greven
So just because Snopes, who has been wrong before, can't prove that he's missing (or that he isn't, either, as they never made contact with him), it's a validated hoax?