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.

 

Investigations: Hillary vs Trump

page: 3
38
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: DBCowboy

Don't forget Bill Clinton and China. Those ICBM's don't steer themselves.

Thats right. All those laptops containing classified information on US nuclear weapons that went missing. At a convenient time China's leadership was visiting the US.
Then they suddenly turn up in toilet stalls , behind water coolers , and in broom closets after they left.



Yep, and Hillary was a hair away from winning the WH. Oh the irony.




posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Trump should be investigated for firing Comey.


First you are now changing your story. I quoted exactly why you said he should have been investigated, and it was totally different.

So you didn't approve of the FBI investigation into Trump before he fired Comey? You are now saying that Trumps associates having connections to Russia was not a reason to investigate him?

So I am assuming if I go back and look, you would have been saying on here there was no need to investigate Trump before he fired comey, right?






That $140 million appears to have come from one person, Guistra, through his own foundation, and has worked with the Clintons before this.



Wrong. Nine people involved with the company that were Russian gave her money.

And even if it was just one Russian with ties to the state trying to get them uranium, why is that ok?




An investigation in to Hillary may be justified, but only if you provide better substance in to why she should be. So far, you are relying on circumstantial evidence and conspiracy.


No I am not. She took money from russians, she voted for the uranium one deal, and at least one person connected to the russians that gave her money through the company he worked for was convicted of bribery and extortion.

These are known facts, and according to your original explanation for why Trump needed to be investigated ( his associates connections to foreign agents, it ios more than enough to start an investigation.

The fact that you are now changing your standar for when an investigation is needed because you realize that Hillary meets that criteria again proves your hypocrisy and partisanship.
edit on 18-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Just a thought, to play devils advocate, collusion isn't illegal.

It may not be ethical, but I don't think anyone would argue for Hillary's ethics.


You are right, collusion isn't illegal.

However, pay for play is (I believe).

If Hillary was accepting money from foreign entities to influence her policy decisions, that is a crime.


To prove that, you'd have to show how Russia or any foreign entity benefitted by the sale of 20% of the US supply of yellow cake uranium.

Maybe we can subpoena the Ayatollah or L'il Kim in North Korea.



I don't mean to be flippant but Hanoi Hillary has covered her tracks.

We can smell the fart but she'll never admit to doing it.


Sure you are probably right.

All the more reason for an investigation though, right?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert




Trump's people had meetings with known foreign agents.


Did HRC herself also have meetings with known foreign agents. Also in a much more powerful capacity?

See, the issue is you're using association to make your point on Trump and then in the same breath, claiming that association can't be used to investigate. See the conundrum here.

These two points are what make your argument null. Investigate both, or none. However, I've faith in neither because I believe that part of the system is very very broken.


Yes he knows that, and cant answer.


I just did answer it.

Perhaps if you spent as much time on logical debate and thinking as you do your arrogance, you wouldn't have to create new threads in order to run from the one you were proven to be ignorant.


Yes you answered it by changing your claim as to why Trump should have benn investigated, and then you make some absurd argument as to why its ok for hillary to have connections to foreign agents as a politician but not as a candidate.

Its ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Yes. As SoS...that's her job. If she would have done so as a candidate, then we would be comparing apples to apples.

www.cnn.com...
www.theatlantic.com...

So are we going to leave out the Clinton Foundation as an association that qualifies?




Hillary is not accused of doing anything similar to what Trump did.


A quick google search would show you that Comey is being looked at for questioning again. In fact, she's being accused of much, much more.




You've made your own argument null. You can't even understand how the comparison is not...comparable.


That is completely false. You can't make your argument work without qualifiers. Either guilt by association qualifies or it doesn't. Pick one.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

We'll find out when her underwear gets washed. I nominate you!



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DBCowboy

We'll find out when her underwear gets washed. I nominate you!






posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Grambler

Just a thought, to play devils advocate, collusion isn't illegal.

It may not be ethical, but I don't think anyone would argue for Hillary's ethics.


You are right, collusion isn't illegal.

However, pay for play is (I believe).

If Hillary was accepting money from foreign entities to influence her policy decisions, that is a crime.


To prove that, you'd have to show how Russia or any foreign entity benefitted by the sale of 20% of the US supply of yellow cake uranium.

Maybe we can subpoena the Ayatollah or L'il Kim in North Korea.



I don't mean to be flippant but Hanoi Hillary has covered her tracks.

We can smell the fart but she'll never admit to doing it.


Sure you are probably right.

All the more reason for an investigation though, right?


Agreed.



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



First you are now changing your story. I quoted exactly why you said he should have been investigated, and it was totally different.


In the thread you mined that particular quote I tried to be specific to add the caveat of Trump OR is staff. The investigation did not begin with Trump. It began with his staff's actions.

There was no reason, as far as I know, to investigate Trump until he fired Comey.

See...context is key.



So you didn't approve of the FBI investigation into Trump before he fired Comey? You are now saying that Trumps associates having connections to Russia was not a reason to investigate him?


I approved of them investigating his staff's actions, yes. Up until he fired Comey, I don't believe Trump was personally under investigation.



So I am assuming if I go back and look, you would have been saying on here there was no need to investigate Trump before he fired comey, right?


I can't think of anything, but by all means go look. I'll account for what I may have said in the past.



Wrong. Nine people involved with the company that were Russian gave her money.


But you admit it cannot be proven they were still involved with the company.



And even if it was just one Russian with ties to the state trying to get them uranium, why is that ok?


The deal only allowed a US subsidiary to sell the uranium to US plants. Russia did not get the uranium.

That's a big caveat you are not addressing.



No I am not. She took money from russians, she voted for the uranium one deal, and at least one person connected to the russians that gave her money through the company he worked for was convicted of bribery and extortion.


I wonder, did you read the source of your OP in the other thread? Read this:


His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI.


With permission of the FBI.

The entire thing, if you read your source, was being carefully watched and there was no connection made to Clinton or their foundation, except through only one connection, that I can find, which was established well before the deal was an issue.



These are known facts, and according to your original explanation for why Trump needed to be investigated ( his associates connections to foreign agents, it ios more than enough to start an investigation.


Again, the false equivalency.



The fact that you are now changing your standar for when an investigation is needed because you realize that Hillary meets that criteria again proves your hypocrisy and partisanship


I've not changed my standard. You just lack the will or ability to understand context.

That is not my problem.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI



So are we going to leave out the Clinton Foundation as an association that qualifies?


Both well documented and cases that were admitted and public.

Again, not a good comparison.



A quick google search would show you that Comey is being looked at for questioning again. In fact, she's being accused of much, much more.


So? Accusations can easily be made. Does not mean they are rooted in reality or fact.



That is completely false. You can't make your argument work without qualifiers. Either guilt by association qualifies or it doesn't. Pick one.


No. I do not have to pick one as the context of the situation and the details surrounding it makes a world of difference.

You do not get to set the rules of the game or boil it down to the basic elementary level so you can make such an elementary argument.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Both well documented and cases that were admitted and public. Again, not a good comparison.

Right, public, as was DJT JR when divulging information that can be described as the best evidence to date providing any sort of collusion, which has no legal recourse. Not the best comparison, true, but not in the direction your planting yourself on.




So? Accusations can easily be made. Does not mean they are rooted in reality or fact.


Make up your mind. Are accusations being made or not? You just said they aren't and now they are. If there are people that believe new facts result in a new investigation, then so be it. There are new facts here whether you care to admit it or not.



No. I do not have to pick one as the context of the situation and the details surrounding it makes a world of difference. You do not get to set the rules of the game or boil it down to the basic elementary level so you can make such an elementary argument.


I'm not making rules. I'm using the rules your using to form your argument. Again, your argument falls apart with the qualifiers you yourself placed upon them.



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



Right, public, as was DJT JR when divulging information that can be described as the best evidence to date providing any sort of collusion, which has no legal recourse. Not the best comparison, true, but not in the direction your planting yourself on.


Right. Collusion, which is not what they are being investigated for.



Make up your mind. Are accusations being made or not? You just said they aren't and now they are. If there are people that believe new facts result in a new investigation, then so be it. There are new facts here whether you care to admit it or not.


Accusations are being made, but I'm unsure of any new facts that have come to light that would make any comparison reasonable.



I'm not making rules. I'm using the rules your using to form your argument. Again, your argument falls apart with the qualifiers you yourself placed upon them.


If that is what you believe, perhaps you do not understand the term 'context'.

I do not have to answer to or account for a position that is either black or white, which is exactly what you tried to do. I am more than willing and able to understand the nuances that create a much larger gray that can mean the difference in the eyes of the law.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Right. Collusion, which is not what they are being investigated for.


Then by all means, could you show evidence that Trump received funds/gifts or whatever it is you're claiming happened that required the investigation.




Accusations are being made, but I'm unsure of any new facts that have come to light that would make any comparison reasonable.

That's not up for you to decide. There are indeed new facts and calls for investigations. It's been all over the media the past two days.




If that is what you believe, perhaps you do not understand the term 'context'. I do not have to answer to or account for a position that is either black or white, which is exactly what you tried to do. I am more than willing and able to understand the nuances that create a much larger gray that can mean the difference in the eyes of the law.


You made the argument black and white. You said they are not comparable. Not equivalent. Are or aren't. You used a qualifier that associates of Trump provided the means for need of investigation. BUT Those same standards aren't extended, in your estimation, to HRC based on new evidence.

There is no nuance here.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI



Then by all means, could you show evidence that Trump received funds/gifts or whatever it is you're claiming happened that required the investigation.


No. I never claimed any such thing.



That's not up for you to decide. There are indeed new facts and calls for investigations. It's been all over the media the past two days.




That's not up for you to decide. There are indeed new facts and calls for investigations. It's been all over the media the past two days.


What new facts?

You do not get to, again, boil down an argument to black and white, especially if you rely on the media.

Thought you guys knew better.



You made the argument black and white. You said they are not comparable. Not equivalent. Are or aren't. You used a qualifier that associates of Trump provided the means for need of investigation. BUT Those same standards aren't extended, in your estimation, to HRC based on new evidence. There is no nuance here.


There is always nuance. That is why you and others can't seem to understand what you are being told.

You view the world in black and white, one way or the other.

That shows a lack of understanding and thought.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Now your going to turn your lack of proper argument into my problem and world view? R I G H T

This isn't about me your you, it's about you your argument falls apart under the rules you gave it.

The new evidence is Comeys possible pre-statement and information on the uranium boondoggle.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



I approved of them investigating his staff's actions, yes. Up until he fired Comey, I don't believe Trump was personally under investigation.



Great. Then you have zero rerason to not want an investigaation into Hillaryt, who also has associations with Russian agents, and was paid millions of dollars by them.





I can't think of anything, but by all means go look. I'll account for what I may have said in the past.



I will.




But you admit it cannot be proven they were still involved with the company.



When did I admit that?

I already showed you on another thread that they failed to disclose massive donations from a man named Telfer, who was the chair of Uranium One.

Here again.


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...

Ok so surely now you admit this should be investigated.




The deal only allowed a US subsidiary to sell the uranium to US plants. Russia did not get the uranium.

That's a big caveat you are not addressing.



First why does that matter? Did she accept money from Russians, many connected to a deal with a known extortionist?

And it paved the way for Russian ownership of Uranium one, not just to sell to the US.


Russia's AtomRedMetzoloto (ARMZ) and Toronto- and Johannesburg-registered Uranium One have signed an agreement that will place Uranium One among the top five global uranium producers and see ARMZ take a controlling interest in the company. Meanwhile, Russia may be about to open an enrichment plant to part-foreign ownership

...

The transaction is subject, among anti-trust and other conditions, to Kazakh regulatory approvals, approval under Canadian investment law, clearance by the US Committee on Foreign Investment, and approvals from both the Toronto and Johannesburg stock exchanges, but is expected to be finalised by the end of 2010. It also contains various protections covering the possible future sales of ARMZ's common shares in the company.



www.world-nuclear-news.org...

Although I don't see why it matters, please show me evidence that they can only sell to the US.






I wonder, did you read the source of your OP in the other thread? Read this:


His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI.


With permission of the FBI.

The entire thing, if you read your source, was being carefully watched and there was no connection made to Clinton or their foundation, except through only one connection, that I can find, which was established well before the deal was an issue.



YES!!! Exactly!!!

The FBI was watching and knew of the criminality, and yet let the sale go through.

Again, what the source says.


They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.


thehill.com...

So yes, that is a good source that shows the FBI through an informant found that these criminal elements helped Russian officials give millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation.

Why are you not for an investigation again?






Again, the false equivalency.



No its not. In fact the evidence against possible wrong doing from Hillary is much stronger than any against Trump.




I've not changed my standard. You just lack the will or ability to understand context.

That is not my problem.


You are right that its not my problem.

I encourage you, please seek help to get out of your paartisan bubble.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: introvert

Now your going to turn your lack of proper argument into my problem and world view? R I G H T

This isn't about me your you, it's about you your argument falls apart under the rules you gave it.

The new evidence is Comeys possible pre-statement and information on the uranium boondoggle.



Its unbelievable, isn't it.

How a person can outline exactly what their criteria for an investigation is, and then when shown that others that they presumably view more favorably meet those exact same criteria, now cliam that nuance means the criteria now doesn't apply is truly mind blowing.

It is a great example on just how much partisanship can warp a mind.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

It conveys the problem with the modern day democrat platform. They hypocrisy runs deep. Thankfully it also happens on the hard right and pushes more and more to the middle.

Slowly but surely.



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Grambler

Liberals cannot be objective and their critical thinking skills are in the toilet. This leads to this absolutely one sided cheer leading that is frankly bordering on blindness.


Since Republicans are in control of the HOUSE, SENATE, FBI, DOJ, and the WHITE HOUSE, how the hell are we even in a situation where Robert Muller is empowered to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a Trump Witch Hunt?



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Grambler

Liberals cannot be objective and their critical thinking skills are in the toilet. This leads to this absolutely one sided cheer leading that is frankly bordering on blindness.


Since Republicans are in control of the HOUSE, SENATE, FBI, DOJ, and the WHITE HOUSE, how the hell are we even in a situation where Robert Muller is empowered to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on a Trump Witch Hunt?


Because many establishment republicans also hate Trump.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join