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.

 

Senate Republicans introduce new sanctions against Russia

page: 1
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
For 1. interfering in the 2016 election 2. backing Assad 3. annexing Crimea. Trump will have to accept or veto it. Personally, I don't think sanctions do anything to Russia. They have a very small population of 140 million and more natural resources than any other country. Russia don't need to trade with the US. If I were Trump I sign it just to spite Putin and show him who is the boss. And it starts with a capital T.

www.nbcnews.com...
edit on 13-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
But Russia !!

Collusions !!




posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
2. backing Assad
www.nbcnews.com...


Interpretation: Hitting US military assets being deployed to ISIS.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
I would veto it if I were Trump.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
For 1. interfering in the 2016 election 2. backing Assad 3. annexing Crimea. Trump will have to accept or veto it. Personally, I don't think sanctions do anything to Russia. They have a very small population of 140 million and the most natural resources in the world. Russia don't need to trade with the US. If I were Trump I sign it just to spite Putin and show him who is the boss. And it starts with a capital T.

www.nbcnews.com...


The US needs to trade with Russia though, that's the sad part of it. However, if Putin did direct interference aimed at getting a sympathetic American into power, I do think some kind of limited retaliation is warranted, on the other hand, as many have said already, these shenanigans go on all the time, but the public at large got to know about this time.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

There has to be evidence of Russia interfering in the 2016 election before any retaliatory attack. And so far, I have not seen any evidence.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye




Senate Republicans introduce new sanctions against Russia


Why, Trump and Putin are buds. There's no collusion, so what's the problem. Perhaps the GOP knows something the WH doesn't want revealed and they're sick of covering up his lies.

These investigation will ultimately bring the WH down and the Republicans don't want to be associated with that BS. Can't blame them!!

Flynn is going to squeel....believe me!
edit on 13-6-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
For 1. interfering in the 2016 election 2. backing Assad 3. annexing Crimea. Trump will have to accept or veto it. Personally, I don't think sanctions do anything to Russia. They have a very small population of 140 million and more natural resources than any other country. Russia don't need to trade with the US. If I were Trump I sign it just to spite Putin and show him who is the boss. And it starts with a capital T.

www.nbcnews.com...


We will see.. if trump vetos the sanctions would that make you believe he made a deal??

Because if he never does , nor does he turn a blind eye to Ukraine if Russia invades, then I would consider that myth busted..



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Watch this be McCain and gram helping prove trump did it by forcing him to veto the bill.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Russian sanctions have cost the worlds economies 100's of billions of dollars and put Russia into an economic recession. The sanctions need to end, Crimea is not about to be given back to the Ukraine. The people of The Crimea voted fair and square to join the Russian Federation. No more sanctions, Trump would do well to veto these ones and lift the remaining ones.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Not necessarily. Trump has every right to veto it without giving a reason. Vetoing the sanctions does not prove any deal or collusion.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Russia doesn't need to trade with the US. Russia never traded with the US until after 1991 when Yeltsin became president.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: smurfy

There has to be evidence of Russia interfering in the 2016 election before any retaliatory attack. And so far, I have not seen any evidence.


REALLY?

Even Rosenstein says there WAS interferrence!



“I now have access to classified information, and I think that assessment made by the intelligence community is justified,” Rosenstein said.
LINK

Rosenstein is ALSO a Republican, by the way!!


edit on 13-6-2017 by DanteGaland because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
I would veto it if I were Trump.


Hell yes!!

Trump doesn't want Putin to release the tape of him committing treason by making a deal with a forien adversary! Lol

Which , assuming trump made a deal, I think Putin is smart enough to make.. and I doubt trump was smart enough to protect against.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And what if Trump signs the sanctions bill? What does that prove? Nothing.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

What interference? No votes were changed.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

How very conservative of you lol..

Everything is evidence against it. nothing is evidence for it..

Unless it's some one you don't like then any speculation is the gospel truth.



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Signing or vetoing this bill does not prove or disprove anything about a deal or collusion.
edit on 13-6-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: DanteGaland

What interference? No votes were changed.


Does THIS count?



In Illinois, investigators found evidence that cyber intruders tried to delete or alter voter data. The hackers accessed software designed to be used by poll workers on Election Day, and in at least one state accessed a campaign finance database.

LINK

39 States were breached. The ABOVE is only ONE example.

You need a NEW definition of "interference".




posted on Jun, 13 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: xuenchen

Watch this be McCain and gram helping prove trump did it by forcing him to veto the bill.



What if the investigations prove the "Russian" connections were all because of TOR VPNs ?




new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join