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.

 

The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?

page: 37
40
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you trolling or being serious here?

You never specify which of the two you are doing.

Your posts are always so lacking of concise facts and specifics.

Cant be both in the smoke and clear about things at the same time

What is the evidence of Russian collusion?

You never posted anything new, and everything else was dismissed even before this thread was created in the chambers by the investigstors themselves.....

Same is true for the Russian hack. Argued, cool story bro, but not proven. The evidence was lacking and did not support the claim of a Russian attack that led to wikileak having DNC data.

hence why the investigations are on going, because they still havent proven their case.

All the evidence mentioned ever has been deemed benign. Prove me otherwise.


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
"Muh Russia Hysteria" is nothing but Liberal political manipulation and Liberal Nationalism is playing into their hands


Yet, four committees in Congress controlled by conservative Republicans are carrying on these investigations.

No, it's has nothing to do with "liberal vs. conservative" ... that's patently obvious.

The fact that the Republican leadership hasn't squelched these efforts is quite telling in terms of whether there's anything "there."

Tick tock, Trumpets.


Which investigations are targeting Trump?


Start by quoting that I've claimed investigations are targetting Trump.

Unless your want your strawman argument to be so painfully obvious.



The thread title is "The Trump-Russia Narrative is Dying. Why?".
Your argument appears to be that it is not dying - even though coverage is a fraction of what it was. You seem to be talking about investigations repeatedly, so it's a logical question... which investigations are targeting Trump?


"Appears to be"

"Seems to be"

Generally, these indicate that either the speaker (that's you) is unsure of what they're saying, or they're trying to say something that hasn't been said.

Which is it in your case?


Then clarify.
You have used the investigations as a talking point to prop up the dying narrative, and yet you can't even hold a discussion on the specifics of whether the President is the subject of investigations.

Poor form.



So are you saying that the statement

"The Trump Russia narrative is not dying." (my contention)

... is equivalent to ...

"Donald Trump is being investigated."

????

Really?

You may need a break; you seem distraught.


I think we can finally conclude that not only do you not have any evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to influence the election, you also have no firm information to provide on the context of the current investigations.

Seems you don't know very much... and you wonder why the narrative is dying?


You can conclude anything you like. The evidence of collusion between members of the Trump campaign and Russian agents is not even in the ballpark of questioning any longer.

You guys seem completely uninformed. Do you also contend that there's no evidence that Russian agents interfered in the 2016 Election?

This denial of the obvious thing isn't doing your work any justice here.

The "context of the current investigations" is not the topic of the thread. If you wish to start one, I'll be glad to participate.


More words with no substance from you.
No evidence provided of any crime.
No details provided of what is being investigated.

Russian hacks? No evidence provided.

I don't trust the IC and I sure as hell don't buy into narratives of left wing propagandists.

I'll wait for you to provide something of substance and simply watch the narrative dying more and more the longer you chaps fail to come up with the goods.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hillary did approve of Russia taking over Uranium One and 20% of America's uranium production. What has Trump done for Russia?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hillary did approve of Russia taking over Uranium One and 20% of America's uranium production. What has Trump done for Russia?


That old chestnut?

Check your facts. The State Department (not Hillary) signed off on the merger along with several other Cabinet level departments (members collectively of the Committee on Foreign Investments). So did the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Further, all the uranium in the deal stays in the United States (after being processed in Canada).

Some folks should really get outside the right-wing Echo Chamber once in a while.
edit on 2-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hillary was secretary of state. She could have blocked it.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hillary was secretary of state. She could have blocked it.


Again, your facts are in error. You said "she sold it" and now you're saying "she should have blocked it."

Which is it?



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

mobile.nytimes.com...


Explain then how the Clintons got millions of dollars from Russians to their foundation like ALL her OTHER pay to play schemes during the deal.

You cant.



edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

She profited from it, through her foundation like all her other pay to play deals, and could have not recommended the deal go through.

Which she did.


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
/yawn



However, Clinton did not represent the State Department on the panel of agency officials who approve deals such as the Uranium One transaction. The representative at the time, former Assistant Secretary Jose Fernandez, told the Times, "Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter," referring to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.


CNBC



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm just asking you. Hillary gave Russia Uranium One. What has Trump and his admin ever given Russia?
edit on 2-8-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And what do you think that proves.

Her foundation made MILLIONS from Russian donors during the negotiations.

Then there were speeches paid to be given to Russian investors that were involved in the deal.



While visiting Moscow on March 24, 2010, Hillary explained the Reset’s purpose: “Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”


Hillary in an interview with veteran broadcaster Vladimir Pozner of Russia’s First Channel TV network.






On June 29, 2010, three weeks after Rosatom proposed to Uranium One, Bill Clinton keynoted a seminar staged by Renaissance Capital in Moscow, a reputedly Kremlin-controlled investment bank that promoted this transaction. Renaissance Capital paid Clinton $500,000 for his one-hour speech.

While CFIUS evaluated Rosatom’s offer, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer observed, “a spontaneous outbreak of philanthropy among eight shareholders in Uranium One” began. “These Canadian mining magnates decide now would be a great time to donate tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation.”


www.google.com...

"She wanted to reset"
"Strengthen Russia"

EDIT TO ADD:
I guess you short circuited again. Let me know when you finish freaking out and if you will be trolling like you admitted to or if you will be posting seriously. I can never tell. Its all the same with you.




edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

It would be ignorant and naive to believe that any and every person in government or government hopeful doesn't have foreign monetary ties



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX
I never said that.

Yes and no.

This is one of those "no" situations. Its a clear conflict of interest and an ethics challenge.

She got RICHER while in office. Not before or AFTER.

She knew better and thats why she tried to hide it.

Also, I agree its all true, but disagree that she didnt know better.

I disagree that this is somehow legal. Its not.

Bill Clinton used his wifes office to give insider information to Russian investors, and brokered a deal through the foundations donors to facilitate the transaction from both ends.

Thats illegal. THAT is collusion. Investigate!



edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

Why again do you keep asking for evidence when no one has it yet because they're not finished with the investigation.
It's like slipped gear or something.
Give me evidence
The investigation isnt finished yet
But give me evidence.
They're still investigating. They're bringing in more lawyers.
But I want evidence.
They're still investigating. It might take years.

But but but evidence evidence evidence.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Innocent unless proven guilty. That is the western way.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Another one. Knows that the hard evidence of Russian hacking is classified information and knowing that no one can provide it continues to insist that simply because it can't be handed to him it doesn't exist.

It's so convenient isn't it.

What are you going to say when he gets impeached?
And he is going to be impeached.

Approval rating down to 33% Thats one third. Two out of three people think he's doing a terrible job.
Congress his own party talk about him behind his back.
Today the press laughed at Stephen Miller when he gave that press release about immigration.
Laughed right at him. Then he became a target.

This admin is a train wreck. Off the rails jumbled pile.


My opinion.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth
What are you going to say when he gets impeached?
And he is going to be impeached.


Prejudice much? Since you have already judged Trump a criminal. What's your point to debate?
edit on 2-8-2017 by allsee4eye because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Mueller just added a Prosecutor today that specializes in Fraud and Corruption Prosecution.
www.politico.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

So you havent seen any evidence?

So how are you jumping to conclusions? Oh I know conjecture.

I know there is no evidence that hasnt been entirely dismissed.

Thats why I ask for it to be posted, many say it exists. New "undoubted" evidence.

If you havent seen any evidence you shouldnt jump down our throats for calling BS after 8 months of patiently waiting for anything to turn up.


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

yeah, more concerted efforts are a sign of things not going swimmingly and also of them sweating bullets looking for a way to keep the narrative alive long enough to forget about the DNC killing Seth Rich for leaking to Wikileaks, instead of Russia hacking us to do so, since there was no hack.


edit on 8 2 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join