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.

 

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama admin approved nuclear deal with Moscow

page: 22
141
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The logic of many on the left.

Associates of trump had connections to russia, and possibly got paid by them, and in the future trump could possibly make decisions to benefit russia

=

This is incredibly dangerous. Our country may have been overthrown! We must investigate eveyone and everything related to trump and russia. Anyone remotely invloved should recuse themselves!

Vs.

Hilarry herself took money from russians, and mad decisions to benefit them.

=

How dare people bring up such a co spiracy theory. There is clearly no harm here! No need for an investigation, and no need for anyone involved with this to recuse themselves from any russia investigation.


Dude...just stop.

When you are shown that your assertions are incorrect, you do not double down on them and dig the hole deeper.

As I said earlier, this thread is an embarrassment.




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler
The logic of many on the left.

Associates of trump had connections to russia, and possibly got paid by them, and in the future trump could possibly make decisions to benefit russia

=

This is incredibly dangerous. Our country may have been overthrown! We must investigate eveyone and everything related to trump and russia. Anyone remotely invloved should recuse themselves!

Vs.

Hilarry herself took money from russians, and mad decisions to benefit them.

=

How dare people bring up such a co spiracy theory. There is clearly no harm here! No need for an investigation, and no need for anyone involved with this to recuse themselves from any russia investigation.


Dude...just stop.

When you are shown that your assertions are incorrect, you do not double down on them and dig the hole deeper.

As I said earlier, this thread is an embarrassment.


Sorry.

Your claim you are wrong doesn't prove that I was wrong.

Fact, hillary took money from russians connected to a known extortionate and bribes.

Fact, she voted favorably toward russia with uranium one.

You can deflect all you want, but this is true.

You said the trump investigation is different because people in his campaign had connections to russia.

So his campaign people having connections is call for a huge investogation, but hillary getting millions from russians isn't.

Please, keep going.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

On the nine people.

This article concludes there was nothing shady, but they admit the nine people.


Second, while nine people related to the company did donate to the Clinton Foundation, it’s unclear whether they were still involved in the company by the time of the Russian deal and stood to benefit from it.


www.politifact.com...

Yes the bulk of the money came from a guy who was out by the time the deal went through.

Three points.

1. So what, he couldn't have paid ahead of time for a favor for his old company and friends?

2. There was still millions aside from this.

3. This argent doesn't fly with trump, does it? No one can say well that person hasn5 worked for the Kremlin for a while, so know big deal.

The affidavit on point 13 shows the informant knew mikerin was involved with criminal elements in russia, and contacted the fbi because he thought it was shady.

More to come I got to run.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Your claim you are wrong doesn't prove that I was wrong.


No. Another members posts have proven you are wrong. For some reason it appears you seem to be avoiding that.



Fact, hillary took money from russians connected to a known extortionate and bribes.


Connected by a huge degree of separation. A man that worked for a subsidiary of a subsidiary.

Context is key and you are being disingenuous.



Fact, she voted favorably toward russia with uranium one.


Along with many others on the comittee. Was she paid with bribes to do so?

If so, can you prove it?



You said the trump investigation is different because people in his campaign had connections to russia.


Np. That is not what I said. I said people on Trump's team were being investigated because of their contacts with foreign agents. That is not the same as we see in this case.

Again, very disingenuous of you.



So his campaign people having connections is call for a huge investogation, but hillary getting millions from russians isn't.


I believe that's been proven false.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Well I notice that his successors haven’t made any moves to indict her ... so perhaps Mr. Comey was right.


edit on 18-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Mr. Comey stated that based on the EVIDENCE no prosecutor would pursue the matter. Clinton’s intent was obvious from the hard EVIDENCE on the servers.

You think intent is determined by asking someone if they “meant to”??? Oh my.

I’m not sure why you need to keep misrepresenting basic facts here ... but it’s painfully obvious.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Mr. Comey stated that based on the EVIDENCE no prosecutor would pursue the matter. Clinton’s intent was obvious from the hard EVIDENCE on the servers.

You think intent is determined by asking someone if they “meant to”??? Oh my.

I’m not sure why you need to keep misrepresenting basic facts here ... but it’s painfully obvious.


Yes I think what a person says has a lot to do with intent.

The fact that you claim otherwise is absurd.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Then you have zero understanding of the methods of legally proving intent.

edit on 18-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: T and C



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Then you have zero understanding of the methods of legally proving intent.


Unbelievable.

So you are suggesting that if a feed is done which is criminal if there was intent, there is no need to interview the person?

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

The easiest way to prove intent, and the first step, is to see if the accused admits it, or says something that speaks to their thought during the action they took.




edit on 18-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Then you have zero understanding of the methods of legally proving intent.


Unbelievable.

So you are suggesting that if a feed is done which is criminal if there was intent, there is no need to interview the person?

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

The easiest way to prove intent, and the first step, is to see if the accused admits it, or says something that speaks to their thought during the action they took.





I don't sound ridiculous at all to anyone who understands how criminal intent is established.

You are suggesting that Clinton's intent would have been determined by the FBI asking her "did you mean to?"

I'm wasting my time talking to you.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Then you have zero understanding of the methods of legally proving intent.


The best solution is to convene a special counsel to get to the bottom of it.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Then you have zero understanding of the methods of legally proving intent.


Unbelievable.

So you are suggesting that if a feed is done which is criminal if there was intent, there is no need to interview the person?

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

The easiest way to prove intent, and the first step, is to see if the accused admits it, or says something that speaks to their thought during the action they took.





I don't sound ridiculous at all to anyone who understands how criminal intent is established.

You are suggesting that Clinton's intent would have been determined by the FBI asking her "did you mean to?"

I'm wasting my time talking to you.


Hahaha!!!!!

You think that investigators only use interview to ask did you mean to do it!


Hahahahaha!

You arrogance mixed in with your unbelievably stupid claim is a joke.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Then you have zero understanding of the methods of legally proving intent.


The best solution is to convene a special counsel to get to the bottom of it.


Nope. AG Sessions didn't have to recuse himself from Hillary Clinton's emails as he did with anything relating to the Trump Campaign's collusion with Russian agents.

The Government could file a case against Clinton tomorrow. They have all the evidence that Jim Comey did.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Interestingly, you're the one that claimed that proof of intent depended on interviewing Clinton. If you want to refer to yourself as stupid, be my guest.

My statement is clear: there are a variety of levels of criminal intent, all with different standards of proof. IN most cases, intent is demonstrated by EVIDENCE about the CONTEXT of alleged illegal actions.

If you think that most suspects incriminate themselves in an interview, I can only submit you've been watching too much NCIS, or maybe Judge Judy.

You seem to think intent is proven by merely talking to the suspect, which, as you point out, is kinda stupid.
edit on 18-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Interestingly, you're the one that claimed that proof of intent depended on interviewing Clinton. If you want to refer to yourself as stupid, be my guest.

My statement is clear: there are a variety of levels of criminal intent, all with different standards of proof. IN most cases, intent is demonstrated by EVIDENCE about the alleged illegal actions. If you think that most suspects incriminate themselves in an interview, I can only submit you've been watching too much NCIS, or maybe Judge Judy.

You seem to think it's proven by talking to the suspect, which, as you point out, is kinda stupid.


Of course you can prove intent without interviewing the accused.

But every good investigator would not come to a conclusion on intent without interviewing the accused.

Its re first most basic step into figuring out what a person's intent was.

The fact that you excuse Comey for coming to a conclusion on intent without taking the most basic step is ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: the2ofusr1

If the "Russia=bad" is a part of the false narrative of the left, which suggests that in reality as far as you are concerned, Russia is either "good" or "neutral" ... then why are you so upset that they got control of a few uranium mines that aren't producing again?

Are you saying this faux outrage is just more sound and fury signifying nothing?

(At least my straw man has a Shakespearean flavor.)


Why are youputting out fake news? The uranium mines indeed are producing in fact the company is expanding the project in willow creek. Try going to their website before you sy stupid things.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: the2ofusr1

If the "Russia=bad" is a part of the false narrative of the left, which suggests that in reality as far as you are concerned, Russia is either "good" or "neutral" ... then why are you so upset that they got control of a few uranium mines that aren't producing again?

Are you saying this faux outrage is just more sound and fury signifying nothing?

(At least my straw man has a Shakespearean flavor.)


Why are youputting out fake news? The uranium mines indeed are producing in fact the company is expanding the project in willow creek. Try going to their website before you sy stupid things.


LOL ... why don't you look at the information I cited earlier. Even you can see the rapidly declining production levels in the Uranium One assets. They sold off a majority of the holdings in 2016.

If you can't figure it out, let me know and I'll copy and paste it for you.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So when the FBI interviewed Clinton, and she stated she didn't intend to break any laws, in your mind, that's what settled the matter of criminal intent?

Really man, you should quit while you're ahead. You're losing credibility with every post.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

So when the FBI interviewed Clinton, and she stated she didn't intend to break any laws, in your mind, that's what settled the matter of criminal intent?

Really man, you should quit while you're ahead. You're losing credibility with every post.


What are you talking about?

No her denying it wouldn't settle intent.

But it is a huge clue into what intent may have been. In fact the biggest clue. For Coney to make a decision about intent before interviewing her and many other witnesses is a joke.

You are unbelievable.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Interestingly, you're the one that claimed that proof of intent depended on interviewing Clinton. If you want to refer to yourself as stupid, be my guest.

My statement is clear: there are a variety of levels of criminal intent, all with different standards of proof. IN most cases, intent is demonstrated by EVIDENCE about the alleged illegal actions. If you think that most suspects incriminate themselves in an interview, I can only submit you've been watching too much NCIS, or maybe Judge Judy.

You seem to think it's proven by talking to the suspect, which, as you point out, is kinda stupid.


Of course you can prove intent without interviewing the accused.

But every good investigator would not come to a conclusion on intent without interviewing the accused.

Its re first most basic step into figuring out what a person's intent was.

The fact that you excuse Comey for coming to a conclusion on intent without taking the most basic step is ridiculous.


You twoare arguing intent its not a deciding factor contrary to what Comey said. Law can never truly establish intent. Bottom line we cant read minds thats why intent is of little importance in criminal proceedings only actions which imply intent.
edit on 10/18/17 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
141
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join