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.

 

CRIMINAL Investigation Into OBAMA Admin Dealings With RUSSIA.

page: 7
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: carewemust

Hey, while we’re talking about Hillary ... weren’t most of those donations you are crowing about made before she became Secretary of State? That’s in your Fox article...


Why does that prove this couldn't have been immoral or illegal.

Hillary and Bill were not only still hugely influential before 2008, but everyone knew she was going to run for president and possbly win.

By the same token, I assume any relationship between Russia and trump before the election must not be shady because that was before he was president.


LOL ... "could have been, might have been" you might as well be quoting anonymous sources.

The fact is, you have nothing, unless you're claiming that Russian agents can predict the future. Keep overlooking/encouraging the dishonesty on the RW nonsense posts here G.



Hahahaha!

Ok then there is nothing on trump which you seemed to want investigated.

Unless you are claiming Russians could see the future, and despite almost everyone thinking Hillary was going to win, the predicted the future and knew trump would.



The reports we have had thus far point to the Russians working to change public perception through various means; this is really not in question at this moment. The matter of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian agents is a separate matter which is always conveniently conflated in RW rhetoric.

The fact that Trump did win demonstrates just how successful these activities were (and are for that matter, as the Russian attempts to disrupt our society are ongoing, and we're falling for it.)




posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

CNN "firing" people is just a red herring to make the public automatically believe the next fake story.

They are experts at making "fake" sound "real".




posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: JoshuaCox

CNN "firing" people is just a red herring to make the public automatically believe the next fake story.

They are experts at making "fake" sound "real".



CNN isn't the only experts. Fox News hasn't been referred to as "Faux News" for over a decade for no reason.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: carewemust

Hey, while we’re talking about Hillary ... weren’t most of those donations you are crowing about made before she became Secretary of State? That’s in your Fox article...


Why does that prove this couldn't have been immoral or illegal.

Hillary and Bill were not only still hugely influential before 2008, but everyone knew she was going to run for president and possbly win.

By the same token, I assume any relationship between Russia and trump before the election must not be shady because that was before he was president.


LOL ... "could have been, might have been" you might as well be quoting anonymous sources.

The fact is, you have nothing, unless you're claiming that Russian agents can predict the future. Keep overlooking/encouraging the dishonesty on the RW nonsense posts here G.



Hahahaha!

Ok then there is nothing on trump which you seemed to want investigated.

Unless you are claiming Russians could see the future, and despite almost everyone thinking Hillary was going to win, the predicted the future and knew trump would.



The reports we have had thus far point to the Russians working to change public perception through various means; this is really not in question at this moment. The matter of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian agents is a separate matter which is always conveniently conflated in RW rhetoric.

The fact that Trump did win demonstrates just how successful these activities were (and are for that matter, as the Russian attempts to disrupt our society are ongoing, and we're falling for it.)


What utter garbage!!!

Every single person I have seen onterviewed, even those that hate trump have said there is ZERO proof that Russia's efforts effected the results of the election.

But somehow to you the fact that trump win proves russia was very successful in there efforts.

I mean, it couldn't just be that Hillary sucked.

Damn those Facebook adds and Pokemon from russia!!!! Costing that great woman an election!



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: carewemust

Hey, while we’re talking about Hillary ... weren’t most of those donations you are crowing about made before she became Secretary of State? That’s in your Fox article...


Why does that prove this couldn't have been immoral or illegal.

Hillary and Bill were not only still hugely influential before 2008, but everyone knew she was going to run for president and possbly win.

By the same token, I assume any relationship between Russia and trump before the election must not be shady because that was before he was president.


LOL ... "could have been, might have been" you might as well be quoting anonymous sources.

The fact is, you have nothing, unless you're claiming that Russian agents can predict the future. Keep overlooking/encouraging the dishonesty on the RW nonsense posts here G.



Hahahaha!

Ok then there is nothing on trump which you seemed to want investigated.

Unless you are claiming Russians could see the future, and despite almost everyone thinking Hillary was going to win, the predicted the future and knew trump would.



The reports we have had thus far point to the Russians working to change public perception through various means; this is really not in question at this moment. The matter of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian agents is a separate matter which is always conveniently conflated in RW rhetoric.

The fact that Trump did win demonstrates just how successful these activities were (and are for that matter, as the Russian attempts to disrupt our society are ongoing, and we're falling for it.)


What utter garbage!!!

Every single person I have seen onterviewed, even those that hate trump have said there is ZERO proof that Russia's efforts effected the results of the election.

But somehow to you the fact that trump win proves russia was very successful in there efforts.

I mean, it couldn't just be that Hillary sucked.

Damn those Facebook adds and Pokemon from russia!!!! Costing that great woman an election!


LOL ... given the selective memory that you've displayed in this thread ... I'm unimpressed with your "interviews."

Although, you do seem to be making some progress ... you've accepted that Russian agents did act to boost Trump in the campaign. Bravo.

Trump's win was incredibly narrow, being based on the popular vote in four swing states comprising a difference of about 70,000 votes total. You do the math.

BTW it's getting really tiresome repeating the truth in response to your continuing misrepresentations.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Hillary Clinton campaign spent $1.2 BILLION and failed to win because Russians defeated her on Facebook etc.




posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: carewemust

Hey, while we’re talking about Hillary ... weren’t most of those donations you are crowing about made before she became Secretary of State? That’s in your Fox article...


Why does that prove this couldn't have been immoral or illegal.

Hillary and Bill were not only still hugely influential before 2008, but everyone knew she was going to run for president and possbly win.

By the same token, I assume any relationship between Russia and trump before the election must not be shady because that was before he was president.


LOL ... "could have been, might have been" you might as well be quoting anonymous sources.

The fact is, you have nothing, unless you're claiming that Russian agents can predict the future. Keep overlooking/encouraging the dishonesty on the RW nonsense posts here G.



Hahahaha!

Ok then there is nothing on trump which you seemed to want investigated.

Unless you are claiming Russians could see the future, and despite almost everyone thinking Hillary was going to win, the predicted the future and knew trump would.



The reports we have had thus far point to the Russians working to change public perception through various means; this is really not in question at this moment. The matter of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russian agents is a separate matter which is always conveniently conflated in RW rhetoric.

The fact that Trump did win demonstrates just how successful these activities were (and are for that matter, as the Russian attempts to disrupt our society are ongoing, and we're falling for it.)


What utter garbage!!!

Every single person I have seen onterviewed, even those that hate trump have said there is ZERO proof that Russia's efforts effected the results of the election.

But somehow to you the fact that trump win proves russia was very successful in there efforts.

I mean, it couldn't just be that Hillary sucked.

Damn those Facebook adds and Pokemon from russia!!!! Costing that great woman an election!


LOL ... given the selective memory that you've displayed in this thread ... I'm unimpressed with your "interviews."

Although, you do seem to be making some progress ... you've accepted that Russian agents did act to boost Trump in the campaign. Bravo.

Trump's win was incredibly narrow, being based on the popular vote in four swing states comprising a difference of about 70,000 votes total. You do the math.

BTW it's getting really tiresome repeating the truth in response to your continuing misrepresentations.


Quote me anyone of anyone of significance saying Russia's efforts changed the outcome of the election.

Again, you change you standard between trump and Hillary.

With hillary, accepting millions of dollars from russians before she was Secretary of state is no big deal because the Russians weren't fortune tellers who could see into the future.

But with trump possibly having interactions with russians before he was elect, yep this matters and they were able to see in the future.

Just another in a long line of examples showing how partisan you are



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Grambler

Hillary Clinton campaign spent $1.2 BILLION and failed to win because Russians defeated her on Facebook etc.



And she had other countries media such as the BBC in the bag for here, not to mention the vast majority of the msm media in the U.S..


But let's not forget none of the was a match for russians on facebook, and the dreaded Pokemon!



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

CIA, FBI, and NSA all agree that Russia ran a massive campaign to interfere in the 2016 election, with the intention to hurt Hillary and help Trump. Not sure why that truth is so hard to face. It’s only an assessment from the best intel agencies on the planet.

This thread is nothing more than an attempt to deflect from the real story— which only adds more validity to the real story surrounding the Trump campaign colluding with Russia.

You guys are scared, for some reason, desperate for deflection for some reason.
edit on 23-10-2017 by spiritualzombie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

LOL ... again, since you don't seem to be able to make the distinction, Hillary Clinton has not received any money from Russian agents. If you can't even get that right after numerous corrections, why should I bother with anything you say?

You can spend time tacking up your own straw men ... further, you're mixing your arguments together so badly, it's not worth my time to unravel them for you.

Where did I say that Trump ever "had interactions" with Russians? I've stated here the fact that we know from the self-admissions of people like Flynn, Manafort and even Trump Jr. that they colluded with Russians ... are you denying that now too????

Your posts are getting more boring by the minute.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Grambler

Hillary Clinton campaign spent $1.2 BILLION and failed to win because Russians defeated her on Facebook etc.



Facebook beat the MSM !!




posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Grambler

Hillary Clinton campaign spent $1.2 BILLION and failed to win because Russians defeated her on Facebook etc.


oof
that is a large sum of cash to waste
no wonder dems are so salty
that is enough to fix up puerto rico



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

What real story is that?



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh so you can't quote me anyone saying Russia chnged the outcome of the election.

As far as trump Jr. admitting collusion, no he didn't.

Quote me where he said that.

He admitted meeting what he thought were Russians to see what they had to say about Hillary.

They had notjing, so he didn't collude.

And if that's the standard we know that people in Hillary's campaign actually did meet with Ukrainians and actually did receive dirt of the trump campaign,

Funny you haven't been as vocal in your calls for this to be investigated.

Again, your double standards are clear for all to see.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: spiritualzombie

What real story is that?


I think it is the one on life support in order to keep going and the one now being used as a comfort blanket as Democrats are now being investigated for colluding with Russia.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Take a real problem like the huge investigation into Trump... Flip it into a liberal problem... and invoke Hillary Clinton.

That’s been the method of the Russian disinformation campaign.

This thread hits all the marks.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Wow... A story this big, you would assume the mainstream media would be pushing it 24/7!

Oh, wait..... The mainstream media is liberal, and as such, this story will be avoided as much as posisble



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

Why is the investigation a problem? Is it a problem now, or was it before?

Are you possibly that the Russians got to Mueller too?

Oh, my.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: ausername
a reply to: Grambler

Hillary Clinton campaign spent $1.2 BILLION and failed to win because Russians defeated her on Facebook etc.



Facebook beat the MSM !!



Facebook was a huge source of Russian-based accounts spreading disinformation. I’m not surprised you champion that— many of your threads have peddled that disinformation.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

Well seeing as how the OP is lying about the details of the probe and calling it criminal in nature, why would the media report on a lie?



new topics

top topics



 
86
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join