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.

 

Exclusive: Russian Bank Docs Show How Putin Laundered Money to Hillary & Podesta

page: 3
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
It keeps getting worse for the former Clinton Campaign.

No wonder they kept pressing the Trump/Russian thing.


It was a campaign scapegoat to make it look like Trump had ties with Putin in hacking info on Clinton when in fact it should have been Putin having ties with Clinton instead.




posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Outlier13

I just wanted to say thank you for stating up front that this story was from InfoWars, because that's all I really needed to know.

Alex Jones is an absolute lunatic that should be considered a danger to himself and others. The man belongs in a psychiatric care facility like the one portrayed in "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest."

Every time I see him speak, I'm left wondering just how nutty someone has to be before they are involuntarily committed to an insane asylum.

And No, I wouldn't expect MSM to pick this story up anytime soon because I highly expect that it's total B.S. from beginning to end.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Trump appointing AJ to his security council any day now. After all, I think that's where he gets most of his bombshell scoops from anyway.
edit on 21-2-2017 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Just imagine, all that and more is in the hands of Federal Prosecutors.



Buck



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

But wikileaks had the story last year.

And proved it.




posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
Of course the MSM won't touch it , the source is Infowars.
When did they become credible ?


As I've always respected your opinion, Gortex, and am still a fan/friend irrespective of our different political position, can you dig into the information and see what you think based on the info and the folk who are doing the actual investigation rather than where many are hearing it first?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Its only been admissible for evidence for lets say, the last four weeks, Hehe.
Knowing about it and being able to use it for prosecution / litigation is two different songs.

Buck
edit on 21-2-2017 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-2-2017 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Flatfish

But wikileaks had the story last year.

And proved it.





Proved it where? In what court? The court of public opinion?

Proving something requires more than just saying that you did.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

To me Alex Jones is like Wikipedia. Pay little attention to the body of the article and zero in on the citations and references. It ends up being more informative anyway.

I am no fan of Alex BTW. I have came down on him hard on this very site. But he does come up with some truths once in awhile even though I think he is there to mainly make a profit off his prepper gear ads.
edit on 21-2-2017 by Terminal1 because: Typo



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish

Podesta never denied it.

And he has some declaration forms filled out too.

You need to read all the stories linked.






posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Do you have any idea what is required to take a case of this magnitude to adjudication ??

This is just a brief and basic outline.

www.nmd.uscourts.gov...

Buck




And he has some declaration forms filled out too.


More like failure to declare, and that's a separate case altogether.
edit on 21-2-2017 by flatbush71 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Well if only trial convictions are cause for shutdowns, well how would we ever even get to trials themselves?



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Outlier13

Of course the MSM won't touch it , the source is Infowars.
When did they become credible ?



I was thinking the same thing. Not too long ago it would have been an embarrassment to link anything on ATS to those nuts.

People seem to be taking it seriously.

How odd. And unfortunate.


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll

I was thinking the same thing. Not too long ago it would have been an embarrassment to link anything on ATS to those nuts.

People seem to be taking it seriously.

How odd. And unfortunate.

How odd that you aren't digging into the research provided which isn't from Alex Jones. Telling actually. And unfortunate.
edit on 21-2-2017 by The GUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Everyone expected Hillary Clinton would win.

You know how I translate the above?

ButcherGuy is gettin' a box of kittens for a gift.



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT


As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.


Wow, this thread got really good really quick.


edit on 2/21/2017 by ColdWisdom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Helping out both sides seems clever actually. No matter who won, he / she would be beholden to Putin. At the time, everyone knew Hillary would run for president and probably was the favourite. Then when Trump moved ahead, the assistance went to him.
edit on 21-2-2017 by JimSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 04:57 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Even jimsmith above you gives a stab with


Then when Trump moved ahead, the assistance went to him.
Trump was never ahead and never had backing from even the GOP so if Putin was going to back the other side who was it going to be ? It surely wasn't Trump . He is battling all sides even today .



posted on Feb, 21 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

No thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
95
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join