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.

 

Russia confirms having had contact with Hillary Clinton's campaign in the 2016 election

page: 2
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: carewemust

The majority spoke, and Hillary lost.

I can't imagine where we would be if Hillary the faint was elected.

For some reason her, Barack (can't say his middle man) Obama and Putin had a huge pissing match going. I think it would have been a terrible mistake to have her as pres.


That's exactly right! The snowflakes keep ooking about "the popular vote", but there's no such thing. National elections are based upon the Electoral College vote and that's how BOTH campaigns proceeded. If the vote was based upon a popular count, Trump would have won by an even larger margin.

Bill Clinton's wife was simply a turd of a candidate with a sketchy record.

She lost fair and square.




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Wow, nicely said. I can't wait to see your thread.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
My sources tell me that Hillary is nyet saying anything about it for now.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
So when the heat is cranking up on Trump's connections with Russia, Putin says they had connections with Hillary.

And people believe this?

This actually proves there is something to Trump's Russian connection. If there wasn't, why would Putin try to run interference with a story like this?

Think about it.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

The interview was on CNN and I watched it. And from the look on the reporters face...it was real...certainly not what he wanted to hear....i think he was triggered.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: seasonal

The majority spoke and they voted for Hillary. Don't believe me? Look at the popular vote.


I suppose they wrongly thought the popular vote would win, or was even important? Trump would have won the popular vote if he had campaigned that way, except that way is the wrong way to win which makes it totally irrelevant.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: TinySickTears

The interview was on CNN and I watched it. And from the look on the reporters face...it was real...certainly not what he wanted to hear....i think he was triggered.


The interviewer was ultra-Left America-hater Fareed Zakaria. He was stunned when the Russian official made the admission about Bill Clinton's wife, and quickly fumbled on with another question.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: allsee4eye

It's treason when Trump's team does it, but I bet it's called diplomacy when Hilary's team does it.


What is the it you are referring to?

From The Hill source:


“Well, if you look at some people connected with Hillary Clinton during her campaign, you would probably see that he had lots of meetings of that kind,” Dmitry Peskov told CNN “GPS” host Fareed Zakaria. “There are lots of specialists in politology, people working in think tanks advising Hillary or advising people working for Hillary.”


Peskov is speculating that "probably" Kislyak had meetings with people "working in think tanks advising" Hillary or members of campaign staff.

Hardly definitive but even if these contacts happened, what Peskov is talking about is think tank experts not Hillary or members of her campaign. Of course, that doesn't mean that something treasonous didn't take place. I'm sure there are "think tank experts" who are willing and able to operate as conduits for back channel communications to arrange deals and the like.

Perhaps the contacts should be investigated along with those of the Trump campaign?

Regardless, it's absurd to imply, based on Peskov's noncommittal speculation about downstream contact by people consulted by advisors, that contact between the Clinton campaign and the Russian ambassador was of the same nature as that of some members of the Trump campaign.

And what about the repeated lying about this contact?

In case you or others missed it back in November, Kislyak is only the most recent development:

WOW. Russia Confirms Contact With Trump Campaign


"There were contacts" with influential people close to Trump, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told the Interfax news agency on Thursday. "I don't say that all of them, but a whole array of them, supported contacts with Russian representatives.


Quite a number of comments from Ryabkov (from page 6):


"Obviously, we know most of the people from his (Trump's)entourage. Those people have always been in the limelight in the United States and have occupied high-ranking positions," he said. "I cannot say that all of them, but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives."


At that time, other comments came from a Russian diplomatic spox saying that the communications were innocuous and standard practice but also that the Clinton campaign rebuked efforts by Russian officials to establish these communications.

I don't see there being much similarity.
edit on 2017-3-13 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   
So ... just in general here ... so many of you have argued that there was no issue with the Trump campaign talking to Russia, but if Clinton's folks did it, they should be burned, hung, drawn-and-quartered etc.?

This level of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you guys any headaches?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There's no proof anyone said any of that.




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

There's no proof anyone said any of that.



/shrug

Perhaps not.

Let me know when John Podesta is being investigated by Congress because of what was heard on the other end of a recorded conversation with a Russian agent.

That would be "comparable" ... this Russian agent that has excited so many here is just spewing propaganda.

"Some think tanks or some individuals somewhere that might have talked to Hillary Clinton were probably talked to by the Russian Ambassador"

Sure. That's the same.
edit on 13-3-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... just in general here ... so many of you have argued that there was no issue with the Trump campaign talking to Russia, but if Clinton's folks did it, they should be burned, hung, drawn-and-quartered etc.?

This level of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you guys any headaches?


There is ZERO evidence the Trump Campaign talked to the Russians about the election.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... just in general here ... so many of you have argued that there was no issue with the Trump campaign talking to Russia, but if Clinton's folks did it, they should be burned, hung, drawn-and-quartered etc.?

This level of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you guys any headaches?


There is ZERO evidence the Trump Campaign talked to the Russians about the election.


You don't know that.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The SEC will be looking into Podesta's stock ownership in his Russian company too.




posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... just in general here ... so many of you have argued that there was no issue with the Trump campaign talking to Russia, but if Clinton's folks did it, they should be burned, hung, drawn-and-quartered etc.?

This level of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you guys any headaches?


There is ZERO evidence the Trump Campaign talked to the Russians about the election.


You don't know that.


I absolutely know that because every media source and politician who's on the record have ALL said there was no collusion between the Trump Camp and "The Russians".



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

The SEC will be looking into Podesta's stock ownership in his Russian company too.



I think that very soon, Podesta. Bill Clinton's wife, and Slick Willy himself are all going to spending some time talking to the DOJ.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SBMcG

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... just in general here ... so many of you have argued that there was no issue with the Trump campaign talking to Russia, but if Clinton's folks did it, they should be burned, hung, drawn-and-quartered etc.?

This level of cognitive dissonance doesn't cause you guys any headaches?


There is ZERO evidence the Trump Campaign talked to the Russians about the election.


You don't know that.


I absolutely know that because every media source and politician who's on the record have ALL said there was no collusion between the Trump Camp and "The Russians".


You're paraphrasing a bunch of comments down to what you want them to say..

You do not (and neither does anyone else in the public) know what has been discovered, what is being investigated, etc.

You believe folks (say Clapper) when it suits your narrative, and call them liars when it doesn't.

/shrug



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

The SEC will be looking into Podesta's stock ownership in his Russian company too.



Perhaps.

But the FBI isn't looking at anything he's done as a possible breach of national security.

As far as insider trading or the international equivalent ... it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

Politicians, and those who serve them, are perennial liars.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: SBMcG

Since we're just throwing out the votes we don't like then I'll just throw all of Trump's votes away and say that Hillary had the biggest win in history. Sound fair?

You can't just act like California votes didn't count, that's absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: SBMcG

Since we're just throwing out the votes we don't like then I'll just throw all of Trump's votes away and say that Hillary had the biggest win in history. Sound fair?

You can't just act like California votes didn't count, that's absolutely ridiculous.


Trump won based on about 107K votes in three swing States ... MI, WI, and PA.

More people voted against Trump than voted for him by a 10% margin.

His win in the Electoral College was thinner than any recent President except for ... GWB.

Some folks hate these facts, however.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join