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: 25
141
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

My wife was telling me about this before Levoy Finicum was killed..

We knew about this back then, but it was all hot rumours.

My wife figured it out, and basically gave me the same rundown as this story a long time ago.

So, goes to show you that armchair detectives do get it right sometimes.

Proud of my wife for sussing this one out a long time ago.

Pravdaseeker

a reply to: Grambler




posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 03:30 AM
link   
not sure but anything can happen



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

So it's your assertion that anyone working for the Russian government, or even had previously worked for the Russian government is "straight from the Kremlin"? As if I met a lawyer from the IRS, I could say I know a lawyer direct from the white house?

You made a mistake, you lied, either intentionally, or inadvertently. Nothing in that e-mail chain shows that anything came "direct from the Kremlin". Fonzie called, his shark is parked out back.
edit on 19-10-2017 by network dude because: bad spler



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



You forget that the email that was used to lure Donny into the trap specifically mentioned the Russian government several times. Whether or not this was set up by the Kremlin, Donny thought it was!



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

There is no reason to continue this conversation if you are going to be purposefully obtuse. I've shown you the difference that I was speaking of and you have been provided with more than enough material to conclude that the two situations are not comparable and enough material to cast doubt on the entire issue.

Hell, you even posted a link to a source that casts doubt on your own assertions.

Very disappointing Grambler.

I knew you were snarky and partisan, but I did not know you were so dishonest.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   
As expected, Trump tweeted on the topic :


Uranium deal to Russia, with Clinton help and Obama Administration knowledge, is the biggest story that Fake Media doesn't want to follow!

Source



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:01 AM
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.


Everything you've just said can apply to Clinton.

John Podesta was a member of Hillary's campaign.

John Podesta is part of the Podesta group.

The Podesta group was paid by Russia's largest bank to lobby on their behalf to lessen Obama era sanctions in 2016.

The Podesta group also lobbied for Uranium One in 2012.








edit on 19-10-2017 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454



John Podesta was a member of Hillary's campaign.

Not just a member, the Chairman.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Podesta was paid by Russians in 2016; Trump has done "a lot of business" with the Russians and indeed was trying to build a unit in Moscow in 2016.

What's the point? Do you have evidence of the Clinton Campaign colluding with Russians to affect the Election?

Uranium One is a non-issue based on the evidence.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

There is no reason to continue this conversation if you are going to be purposefully obtuse. I've shown you the difference that I was speaking of and you have been provided with more than enough material to conclude that the two situations are not comparable and enough material to cast doubt on the entire issue.

Hell, you even posted a link to a source that casts doubt on your own assertions.

Very disappointing Grambler.

I knew you were snarky and partisan, but I did not know you were so dishonest.


You have been exposed.

You outlined exactly what would warrant an investogation, and then when shown that Hillary meats the criteria, you say that doesn't count for her.

I mention how her campaign lobbied for russia, doesn't matter to you.

How it got dirt from Ukraine. You just say it's been debunked while provding no evidence.

How her campaign and others paid a foreign agent to dig up dirt. No response from you.

How she either dealt with Russians as SOS and received money from them which is a conflict of interets, or dealt without outside of the capacity which would make you claims ahewas SOS irrelevant, you ignore it.

It is laughable how hard you are trying to excuseeeven an investigation of Hillary.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Wardaddy454



John Podesta was a member of Hillary's campaign.

Not just a member, the Chairman.


And this is another example of how some of you cannot understand the nuances that make a huge difference.

Look at the link wardaddy provided. Can you read the names of the 2 people that were lobbying on behalf of the Podesta Group?

Is John Podesta's name on the list?

No, it's not.

Therefore the comparison is invalid.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Wardaddy454



John Podesta was a member of Hillary's campaign.

Not just a member, the Chairman.


And this is another example of how some of you cannot understand the nuances that make a huge difference.

Look at the link wardaddy provided. Can you read the names of the 2 people that were lobbying on behalf of the Podesta Group?

Is John Podesta's name on the list?

No, it's not.

Therefore the comparison is invalid.


And don't forget that John Podesta has of course NOTHING, NADA, ZERO to do with the Podesta Group. Right..?

I really think that innocent iddy widdy John Podesta, this almost angelic creature, should sue the imposter, surely some kind of super evil RUSSIAN double agent spy spook thug, who has stolen Podesta's pure as snow name and created this company just to slander him!

LMAO



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadingOne

So, by your logic, Trump was working as a foreign agent during the campaign?

Members of the Trump Campaign certainly were ... and there's that word TRUMP right in the title.

So by your logic, Trump is a foreign agent?

You need to try harder.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert




And this is another example of how some of you cannot understand the nuances that make a huge difference.

Hillary and Bill are attorneys.

Their entire life (and their underworld empire) is built upon nuance and skirting the law.

IS sometimes does not equal IS to paraphrase Bill.


The firm is run by Tony Podesta, whose brother, John, is a longtime adviser to Clinton and was chairman of her 2016 presidential campaign. John Podesta was a senior counselor to President Barack Obama in 2014 and had previously been lobbying partners with his brother. He is not currently affiliated with his brother's firm.

(Highlighting mine)
CNN
If there was any way that they could, CNN would have said that John NEVER was affiliated with the group. In fact, John Podesta co-founded the group. Hardly 'no connection at all'.
edit on b000000312017-10-19T10:05:47-05:0010America/ChicagoThu, 19 Oct 2017 10:05:47 -05001000000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

No one has "been exposed" ... my god where do you come up with these hyperbolic bits of nonsense.

You and others here have tried to run little semantic and fallacious games, but anyone with any awareness sees what the facts are.

You're stil touting Uranium One and Pokemon as facts. It's quite obvious you have not even a little bit of traction in terms of what is factual and what isn't.

All you (and others) are doing here is applying the most ridiculous strawman arguments to any facts brought up. Over and over and over.

You're fronting for pure hot talking points directly from the RW media, and then you want to cry about partisanship.

The only issue here is blatant, unmitigated hypocrisy.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You have been exposed. You outlined exactly what would warrant an investogation, and then when shown that Hillary meats the criteria, you say that doesn't count for her.


No, I said there was a difference between the two situation and Trump's team put themselves in a position to warrant the investigation.

Hillary and her team are not in a similar situation.



I mention how her campaign lobbied for russia, doesn't matter to you.


Her campaign did not lobby for Russia.



How it got dirt from Ukraine. You just say it's been debunked while provding no evidence.


Yes, it has been debunked as being illegal or unethical. The Ukraine willingly provided material on Manafort and not Trump himself.



How her campaign and others paid a foreign agent to dig up dirt. No response from you.


See. This is more of your disingenuous nature. Her campaign apparently paid for a group to do opposition research and the group filed as a foreign agent because of work they were doing for someone else.

Not illegal and it is those small differences that you seem unable to admit or comprehend.



How she either dealt with Russians as SOS and received money from them which is a conflict of interets, or dealt without outside of the capacity which would make you claims ahewas SOS irrelevant, you ignore it.


There is nothing illegal about the CF getting donations from foreigners. The bulk of that money came from one man whom they had worked with before. You also have to prove that she acted in any way that shows a clear conflict of interest.

The uranium issue is not proof.

Which, by the way, you ignore the fact that Russia never got their hands on any of that uranium, which you claimed.



It is laughable how hard you are trying to excuseeeven an investigation of Hillary.


Investigate away. I don't care.

I've been trying to show you the differences between the two situations, Trump and Hillary, while you try to make ridiculous comparisons and claiming those silly comparisons are proof that if we investigate one, we must investigate the other.

No. Each case is different and has their own set of facts surrounding it. The comparison cannot be made and your assertions are highly illogical, as well as being devoid of proper context and information.



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: ReadingOne

I believe Podesta stepped down as chair when he worked for the campaign. It is those differences that make a world of difference.
edit on 19-10-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Why would the witness be blocked with an NDA, from testifying to congress?



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert




And this is another example of how some of you cannot understand the nuances that make a huge difference.

Hillary and Bill are attorneys.

Their entire life (and their underworld empire) is built upon nuance and skirting the law.

IS sometimes does not equal IS to paraphrase Bill.


The firm is run by Tony Podesta, whose brother, John, is a longtime adviser to Clinton and was chairman of her 2016 presidential campaign. John Podesta was a senior counselor to President Barack Obama in 2014 and had previously been lobbying partners with his brother. He is not currently affiliated with his brother's firm.

(Highlighting mine)
CNN
If there was any way that they could, CNN would have said that John NEVER was affiliated with the group. In fact, John Podesta co-founded the group. Hardly 'no connection at all'.


And there is the all-important difference.

Thank you.

Your emotions feeling towards CNN are irrelevant.
edit on 19-10-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Why would the witness be blocked with an NDA, from testifying to congress?


You're in the wrong thread. I can understand, there have been multiples started on the same topic with the same articles cited.

I think you may want this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
141
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join