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: 24
141
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



As SoS, I'm sure she did. But did she, outside of the role of SoS, or her staff have undocumented contact with foreign agents to discuss US policy if elected, or meet with them for the sake of getting dirt on their opponent in the US election?



First off, we know that heer campaign did meet with foriegn agents, in the Ukraine, to get dirt on her opposition.

Secondly, we know that Democrats and some republicans paid a foreign agent to dig up dirt on trump, who relied on russian sources, and then that evidence was leaked to the media and used to start an investigation on Trump.

Third, the Clinton Foundation eventually had to admit that they failled to dislose some of the donations to the russians involved in the uranium one deal.

Fourth, we know that unlike Trump who theoretically could have enacted policy favorable to russia, she actually did vote in favor of what the russians that donated 140 million dollars to her wanted.

Lastly, there is no evidence that her dealings with these nine donors were all part of her role as Sos. Its a double bind; if it was in her duties, then it would have been horribly inappropriate and problematic for her to accept money from them. Or the dealings had nothing to do with her role as Sos, meaning your deflection doesn't work.

So why no investigation again?




The largest sum seems to come from one person they had worked with before.



How is this relevant?




Still can't understand the difference, can you?


Because there is no difference that would justify an investigation into trump and not Hillary.




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Let's not forget that Sberbank, Russia’s largest banking institution, paid Tony Podesta – brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair – 170,000 dollars from March to September 2016 to lobby against Obama-imposed sanctions against Russia. From what the Panama Papers reveal, this wasn't a one time deal. Interesting to hear about that car bomb eh? Almost as if tying up loose ends.

Seems worse than Don Jr. meeting with a lawyer he didn't know to talk about lifting sanctions for 20 minutes.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

So you have no idea of the content Comey started writing in May?

Is that correct?


You are correct.

However, as your article states, he seems like he was explaining his decision months before he even interviewed hillary.

Given his stance in intent, this is absurd.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He “seems like” he’s doing something???



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
Let's not forget that Sberbank, Russia’s largest banking institution, paid Tony Podesta – brother of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair – 170,000 dollars from March to September 2016 to lobby against Obama-imposed sanctions against Russia. From what the Panama Papers reveal, this wasn't a one time deal. Interesting to hear about that car bomb eh? Almost as if tying up loose ends.

Seems worse than Don Jr. meeting with a lawyer he didn't know to talk about lifting sanctions for 20 minutes.



Yes again this is true, ad that to the pile of evidence.

But again, the stance is trump associates meeting with russians = worst things ever

Hillary and her associates meet with russians = absolutely fine.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

He “seems like” he’s doing something???



Hahahaha!

From your own source.


The FBI released documents on Monday revealing former Director James Comey drafted a statement about the conclusion of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server long before that investigation had actually concluded.

The FBI emails released this week are heavily redacted, but confirm Comey began drafting his July statement as early as May. Clinton herself was not interviewed until July 2.

....

Portions of the transcript included in Graham and Grassley's letter reveal Rybicki said that Comey, in search of "the most forward-leaning thing we could do," circulated a draft of the eventual statement, "knowing the direction the investigation is headed," in the spring. As the senators pointed out, by May 2016, the FBI still had not interviewed Clinton, or "sixteen other key witnesses, including Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, and John Bentel."

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

So he knew that they were going to conclude Hillary did all of these terrible things, but didnt have intent in may before he interviewed her.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Do you really look at the world in such a simplistic manner?

Astounding.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Right. Comey started composing information about the case with an eye toward an eventual announcement to the public.

Again, do you or "my source" or anything else have any evidence which suggests what the actual details of this informational memo was? What content it had?

If not, can you admit that all of this particular line of garbage is nothing more than your supposition according to the political narrative you ascribe to?

Can you stop pretending that you're dealing in logical or factual information and admit that you're just ... what ... musing?


You don't know, I don't know, no one outside the FBI and perhaps some Senators know what is in those documents.

Therefore, all you have done here is parrot the RW narrative that "Comey decided Clinton was innocent before she was even interviewed."

(Of note, he didn't think she was "innocent" what he stated was that in his opinion no prosecutor would bring the case.)
edit on 18-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Do you really look at the world in such a simplistic manner?

Astounding.


Yes I look at the world thinking that consistency is important.

If Trump associates meeting with russians to possibly discuss policy decisions for Trump warrants an investigation, then Hillarys campaign managers firm and brother getting directly paid by Russia to lobby to remove sanctions would aslo warrant an investigation.

Please explain to me the very complicated manner in which you view the world that leads to the conclusion that Hillary should not be investigated for doing the same things that people are claiming Trump should be investigated.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

We're not talking about Trump associates ... we're talking about members of Trump's campaign.

We're not talking about business opportunities, we're talking about influencing the Presidential Election.

You want to talk about meetings that happened 5-10 years ago between Clinton associates and Russians?

You want to equate that with meeting with Russian agents (and then deny deny denying it until caught red-handed) on the part of the Trump Campaign?

Yes, if you equate those two circumstances, you are grossly oversimplifying the facts. That you don't even seem to know that you're doing that makes me think I'm wasting my time.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



First off, we know that heer campaign did meet with foriegn agents, in the Ukraine, to get dirt on her opposition.


Are you talking about the Chalupa nonsense?

That was debunked long ago.



Secondly, we know that Democrats and some republicans paid a foreign agent to dig up dirt on trump, who relied on russian sources, and then that evidence was leaked to the media and used to start an investigation on Trump.


Not the same, but ok.



Third, the Clinton Foundation eventually had to admit that they failled to dislose some of the donations to the russians involved in the uranium one deal.


Which Russians donated to her that were involved in that deal?



Fourth, we know that unlike Trump who theoretically could have enacted policy favorable to russia, she actually did vote in favor of what the russians that donated 140 million dollars to her wanted.


Proof please.



Lastly, there is no evidence that her dealings with these nine donors were all part of her role as Sos. Its a double bind; if it was in her duties, then it would have been horribly inappropriate and problematic for her to accept money from them. Or the dealings had nothing to do with her role as Sos, meaning your deflection doesn't work. So why no investigation again?


Exactly. No evidence.



How is this relevant?


They were working with that person well before the deal took place and so it is logical to say their continued work is not indicative of a corrupt deal with Russia.



Because there is no difference that would justify an investigation into trump and not Hillary.


Yes there is. It's called evidence or suspicion.

Your conspiracy theories are not enough suspicion, more so considering the FBI was part of the initial kickbacks in the first place.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I admit that I dont know what he said in the memo, you are right.

However, Comey clearly needs to explain himself and what this was about.

But you are right, I suppose we don't know exactly what he said, only that the emails do include Rybicki saying he circulated the draft knowing the direction the investigation was going.

Will you now admit that based on the fact that Hillary (or her foundation) did receive 140 million dollars from russsians involved in the uranium deal, and that given that we know that at least one person invloved in that deal was convicted of bribery and extortion, it warrants looking into?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

We're not talking about Trump associates ... we're talking about members of Trump's campaign.

We're not talking about business opportunities, we're talking about influencing the Presidential Election.

You want to talk about meetings that happened 5-10 years ago between Clinton associates and Russians?

You want to equate that with meeting with Russian agents (and then deny deny denying it until caught red-handed) on the part of the Trump Campaign?

Yes, if you equate those two circumstances, you are grossly oversimplifying the facts. That you don't even seem to know that you're doing that makes me think I'm wasting my time.


Ridiculous.

Podesta was working for Russia until 2016, so how does anything you say here apply to that?

His brother also failed to disclose monies from Russians, as did the clinton Foundation until much later.

You say influencing elections? How about obtaining Uranium? That is a far bigger deal.

Not to mention we have proof that Russians did give millions to Hillary; can you show me any proof they gave Trump money?

If associations from trumps associates to russians is reason for an investigation, there there is no logical reason why Hillary herself and her associates not only meeting with russians (some of which were connected to known extortionists) but accepting millions of dollars from them shouldnt also merrit an investigation.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Why does Comey need to explain himself? All we know is that he knew the investigation was nearing an end, he knew that the FBI would have to be very careful about remaining non-partisan, and he started working on the draft of what the Bureau would eventually inform the public of regarding the investigation.

What does he need to explain? Several here, the Assistant Director of the FBI I quoted earlier have all said that it is common to work on the eventual disclosure of results of an investigation to the public months in advance.

I don't have knowledge of $140 million dollars going to the Clinton Foundation, to Hillary or anyone else. I've demonstrated clearly why the desperate need to make political hay out of the Uranium One deal is pointless.

Grassley (who has always tried to pump something out of the U1 matter) is sending out letters and having yet another investigation based on political theatre. I've clearly provided mounds of evidence detailing why the "Uranium One" matter is merely inflated political rhetoric on the part of the RW Media, the Congressional Republicans and folks like you.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You say influencing elections? How about obtaining Uranium? That is a far bigger deal.


Jesus.

Your own source says that the uranium is to only be sold to US plants in that deal.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Are you focusing on the matters surrounding the Uranium One deal or not? Those events took place 9-10 years ago.

I'm not repeating myself on Uranium One any more. If you insist on misrepresenting the facts, so be it.

Four Republican-led Congressional Committees are investigating the Trump Campaign connections to Russian Agents. You and others keep trying to suggest that this has been accomplished by "the left" or "the MSM."

Do you really think that these investigations would be on-going and that Congressional Republicans would have been strategizing to make sure that Special Counsel Mueller couldn't be countermanded or removed by the Trump Administration over NOTHING?

Take it up with them.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Are you talking about the Chalupa nonsense?

That was debunked long ago.




Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.


www.politico.com...

When was this debunked? Please show me.




Not the same, but ok.



Great by your own admission then this warrants an investigation. Glad to have you on board.




Which Russians donated to her that were involved in that deal?




Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.


www.nytimes.com...

Much more at that link.

So again, this meets your criteria of undocumented material, this time massive donations from Russians.

Oh and look how that NYT article also quotes an anonymous clinton foundation member admitting of course they were tryin g to buy influence.




Proof please.



You want proof she voted for the uranium one deal? Are you telling me you are having this discussion and don't even know that?

Wow.




Exactly. No evidence.


Yes exactly; she either got money from them outside her role as Sos, or it was pay for play. Either way there should be an investigation.



They were working with that person well before the deal took place and so it is logical to say their continued work is not indicative of a corrupt deal with Russia.



Makes no sense. So if Manafort had been meetiing with Russians for a long time, that proves he did nothing wrong?

Again, that was only 1 of the nine donors, and if associations with russian agents is the criteria, there is no reason a long association with an agent should somehow equal not needing an investigation.

On the contrary, its even shadier.



Yes there is. It's called evidence or suspicion.

Your conspiracy theories are not enough suspicion, more so considering the FBI was part of the initial kickbacks in the first place.


You said associations with Russian agents were the reason for the investigation.

I showed you over and over again how Hillary meets that criteria, and yet you are so partisan you twist and turn to act like that doesn't apply to Hillary for no reason.
edit on 18-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Are you focusing on the matters surrounding the Uranium One deal or not? Those events took place 9-10 years ago.

I'm not repeating myself on Uranium One any more. If you insist on misrepresenting the facts, so be it.

Four Republican-led Congressional Committees are investigating the Trump Campaign connections to Russian Agents. You and others keep trying to suggest that this has been accomplished by "the left" or "the MSM."

Do you really think that these investigations would be on-going and that Congressional Republicans would have been strategizing to make sure that Special Counsel Mueller couldn't be countermanded or removed by the Trump Administration over NOTHING?

Take it up with them.


Got it.

Meetings with Russians agents by associates of trump = bad.

Accepting 140 million dollars from them, having your associates actively lobby to remove sanctions for them and get paid by Russia, = A-ok.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your own source has a FBI assistant under Comey named Hosko that says


"I think the content of the statement is going to be important," said Hosko. "Did it purport to essentially acquit her actions way prematurely, or was it simply a running statement of what they knew?"


Even he acknowledges we need to know what was in this.

In other words, Comey needs to explain himeslef, for all of the reasons I outlined.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Now the informant is saying through his lawyer that the Obama admin threatened him to not tell congress about the extent of the corruption and bribery.


Attorney Victoria Toensing, a former Reagan Justice Department official and former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday she is working with members of Congress to see if they can get the Trump Justice Department or the FBI to free her client to talk to lawmakers.

“All of the information about this corruption has not come out,” she said in an interview Tuesday. “And so my client, the same part of my client that made him go into the FBI in the first place, says, 'This is wrong. What should I do about it?'”

Toensing said she also possesses memos that recount how the Justice Department last year threatened her client when he attempted to file a lawsuit that could have drawn attention to the Russian corruption during the 2016 presidential race as well as helped him recover some of the money Russians stole from him through kickbacks during the FBI probe.

The undercover client witnessed “a lot of bribery going on around the U.S.” but was asked by the FBI to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that prevents him from revealing what he knows to Congress, Toensing explained.

When he tried to bring some of the allegations to light in the lawsuit last year, “the Obama Justice Department threatened him with loss of freedom. They said they would bring a criminal case against him for violating an NDA,” she added.


thehill.com...

If this is true, its damning for Obama.

Starting to look like there may have indeed been serious russian collusion, from Hillary and dems.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join