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.

 

Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta

page: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

The witnesses stated that the man in question was 20 to 40 years old. At the time of the abduction John was almost 60. Tony would have been even older. There is also no indication that the man in question was in any way involved. He was included in a list of 40 possible suspects. Furthermore, there's no evidence to even suggest that the Podestas were in Portugal on the night in question. So why would you automatically assume they were?




posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I too think Hillary is dirty, I just don't let myself get turned into Pavlov's dog over it. Half the people in this thread so far clearly didn't read the article. They saw the name Podesta and assumed it had to do with Hillary.



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

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Very appropriate.

Podesta had clear ties to Russia; let's follow the truth where it takes us.


Of course it is.

Shame that so many here on ats fought so hard to say that Hillary's connections to russia didn't need investigated, and only right wing conspiracy theorists such as Grassley were calling for it.

How quickly the tune changes.


Well, if this is your usual passive-agressive nonsense, I've corrected you on Uranium One and in the same comments stated clearly that we should not hesitate to investigate anyone with cause. However, you, as usual, are dishonestly attempting to conflate this issue with the faux Uranium One garbage ... which is inaccurate and dishonest.


I love how some of you anti trumpets argue.

You say things like trumps team has to be investigated becauaas of connections to russia.

When shown Hillary's team has connections to, you claim that somehow those connections are ok.

Then you just claim you have debunked something which you have not.

Uranium one, fact, Hillary took money from Russian interests people.

Fact, she sat on a group that approved pro Russian plan of allowing the control of uranium.

This alone should warrant an investigation based on the justifications for the investigation into trump.

In addition, wichers the uranium one spokesperson is mentioned by the nyt as having admitted to shipping uranium overseas.

Your claim that I have to prove that is ridiculous.

If it was a lie, she or uranium one would have blasted the nyt for making this up.

Then you claim that most of the money given to Hillary was before she was Secretary of state, so this somehow proves there is no courrtion, ignoring the fact these people giving money thought there was a very good chance she would be president.

By the same token, you would have to say that any claims of russia trump relationships before he was president are perfectly innocent because he wasn't in office yet.

Your double standards are clear for all to see.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Gryphon66

I too think Hillary is dirty, I just don't let myself get turned into Pavlov's dog over it. Half the people in this thread so far clearly didn't read the article. They saw the name Podesta and assumed it had to do with Hillary.


Right.

Like people see the name Flynn or manafort and assume it has to do with trump.

I mean, it's not like the lobbying group ran founded by Hillary's campaign chair, ran by his broter, who also campaigned and find raised for Hillary should be connected to her in any way.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I'd take the arguments of "anti-Trump" members over the fallacious, dishonest nonsense we see here daily from the Trump cultists.

I have not claimed that any connections to Russia are okay - that's dishonest to state that I have said that.

I told you I have shown you and others the truth about Uranium One from primary sources. The information can be accessed again from the links in my sig. Apparently, for you and many others here, that is an irrational belief that you aren't going to discard no matter what the facts are.

Clinton didn't vote on the Uranium One merger as you've been personally shown multiple times; every time you say this you're intentionally lying.

One article in 2015 cited a Uranium One spokesperson with no backup, no quote, and no subsequent confirmation - it's fake news.

No money was "given to Hillary" for the humpteenth time. You just cannot keep your story straight, can you?




edit on 23-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
According to NBC 'sources' this has 'morphed into a criminal enquiry'. Not 'could be'.


The sources said the investigation into Podesta and his company began as more of a fact-finding mission about the ECMU and Manafort's role in the campaign, but has now morphed into a criminal inquiry into whether the firm violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA.


It's spun off from the investigation into Manfort and relates to the Podesta Group, not just Tony Podesta.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I'd take the arguments of "anti-Trump" members over the fallacious, dishonest nonsense we see here daily from the Trump cultists.

I have not claimed that any connections to Russia are okay - that's dishonest to state that I have said that.

I told you I have shown you and others the truth about Uranium One from primary sources. The information can be accessed again from the links in my sig. Apparently, for you and many others here, that is an irrational belief that you aren't going to discard no matter what the facts are.

Clinton didn't vote on the Uranium One merger as you've been personally shown multiple times; every time you say this you're intentionally lying.

One article in 2015 cited a Uranium One spokesperson with no backup, no quote, and no subsequent confirmation - it's fake news.

No money was "given to Hillary" for the humpteenth time. You just cannot keep your story straight, can you?





Right. Hillary's assistant voted for it.

And money was given to her foundation and husband.

What a joke.

So then you also have been calling out all of the anti trumpets saying that there is no remote proof any money was given by russia to trump, right?

Manafort Flynn and everyone else aren't trump, so you have been outraged at 5he media, politicians and people on ats bringing trumps make into it, right?

Oh that's right, you have been one of the loudest ones against trump, and have total double standards that coneviently always lead to trump is horrible and the democrats are great.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I don't want any Foreign influence in our elections and I don't want the US interfering in anyone else's. That said it's not anyone's fault Hillary is better at legitimizing her dirty dealings. I'm okay with admitting to being wrong if Flynn and Manafort didn't engage in crimes in order to get a man willing to be soft on Russia into the White House. But as it still stands right now, I think that's exactly what happened.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

So you like Hillary because she lies and is provably one of the dirtiest people in US history because she hides it better?

That is just about right, a par on the course.

Better to be bribed into helping Russia rather than perhaps..actually negotiating deals...ahh well.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler

I don't want any Foreign influence in our elections and I don't want the US interfering in anyone else's. That said it's not anyone's fault Hillary is better at legitimizing her dirty dealings. I'm okay with admitting to being wrong if Flynn and Manafort didn't engage in crimes in order to get a man willing to be soft on Russia into the White House. But as it still stands right now, I think that's exactly what happened.


Perhaps that is the case. I have seen no evidence of wrong doing by trump though.

However, of guilty, then arrest him.

As far as Hillary being good at being dirty, all the more reason for an investigation.

And seeing as how both you and me know that, aren't you ashamed of the media's one sided outrage at trump while ignoring all of hllarys dirt?



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: ParasuvO

No.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



As far as Hillary being good at being dirty, all the more reason for an investigation.


Except she's been investigated over and over and over and this investigation has nothing to do with her. I have nothing against her being investigated but this is about work Tony Podesta did for Manafort.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler

I don't want any Foreign influence in our elections and I don't want the US interfering in anyone else's. That said it's not anyone's fault Hillary is better at legitimizing her dirty dealings. I'm okay with admitting to being wrong if Flynn and Manafort didn't engage in crimes in order to get a man willing to be soft on Russia into the White House. But as it still stands right now, I think that's exactly what happened.


Perhaps that is the case. I have seen no evidence of wrong doing by trump though.

However, of guilty, then arrest him.

As far as Hillary being good at being dirty, all the more reason for an investigation.

And seeing as how both you and me know that, aren't you ashamed of the media's one sided outrage at trump while ignoring all of hllarys dirt?


The media did report the dirt on Hillary however, it didn't stand up to scrutiny, trump shouting fake news kept the story going, as the evidence mounts so does the story.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The claim for an investigation into trumps team was that they possibly had relations with Russian agents that they would use to influence trump to issue favorable policies to russia.


It's not an investigation into Trump's team and it never was. It's always been an investigation into all facets of Russian meddling in the election. There's always been an expectation that Mueller and team would follow the investigation wherever it took them.

This same thing was being said in regards to the dossier. It's only the people who have been claiming that this was a "witch hunt to get Trump" who are somehow surprised.

Given the circumstances though, yes, I would consider the possibility of the POTUS being susceptible to undue influence by a foreign power a matter of concern.


With the podesta group, we had proof that they were taking money from russia to lobby on their behalf. But somehow many on the left felt this was different.


It is different. Tony Podesta isn't POTUS, wasn't running for POTUS, etc — he wasn't even a part of the Clinton campaign. As we all know, it is legal for Americans to get paid to lobby for foreign governments. But that wouldn't be appropriate for the President, his cabinet, members of Congress, etc — people who ultimately *decide* foreign policy.


It is proof that these people are not actually concerned with stopping Russian influence, but just really want to bring trump down.


Trump supporters have been passionately denying that Russian influence even exists in defense of Trump or worse, arguing that even it does, oh well. How many Trump supporters have said something like, "What's the big deal? We influence other country's elections?" What's the other popular reason for dismissing Russian influence as a non-issue? It doesn't matter something, something, global terror, yadda yadda, Russia should be our ally?

Now the folks who have been denying that Russian meddling exists gaf about the possibility of something amiss with Tony Podesta? They're suddenly super concerned about Russian influence when it comes to the 2010 CFIUS vote?

Look at the posts in this thread from Lefists objectively. Tony Podesta is being investigated? "Good." Which group is really being more hypocritical here?



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
And seeing as how both you and me know that, aren't you ashamed of the media's one sided outrage at trump while ignoring all of hllarys dirt?


The media's focus on Trump is mainly due to the fact that Hillary no longer is involved in our political process (at least not directly). It sounds like Trump supporters want Hillary impeached (humor entirely meant) for this, when her involvement at this point is not directly affecting the country as is Trump's associates.

Let Mueller scoop everyone involved up, and let the full weight of the federal justice system punish them ALL. None of my liberal friends are that loyal to Hillary that they would defend her if hard evidence displaying collusion/malfeasance was brought to light.

Ultimately we are all on the same side (though we disagree on a number of issues quite vociferously). This should be one of those uniting cases where we all join in on our support because it seems Mueller is legitimately scouring the government for Russian influence and (hopefully) cleaning house.

I absolutely despise Trump, but I'm not going to argue for his impeachment vis-a-vis Russian involvement if Mueller finds nothing to indict him (not to say there aren't other areas that in another world could be grounds for impeachment). My primary concern is not letting Russia infiltrate/control/collapse US institutions (the primary focus of Mueller's investigation). Removing Trump is a far second goal (and one that will almost assuredly have to be done at the polls next election).
edit on 43am17famMon, 23 Oct 2017 11:42:19 -0500America/ChicagoMon, 23 Oct 2017 11:42:19 -0500 by Wayfarer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Hell just froze over, a cow jumped over the moon and Team Hillary is going to look good in stripes.

Maybe the whole Trump Russia thing was just a front by the FBI and alphabet agencies so that the traitors didn't get the jitters and flee. Fake news is probably under investigation too for trying to illegally influence the election, the infamous NBC grab em by the kitty tape on the eave of the last debate.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Fake news is probably under investigation too for trying to illegally influence the election, the infamous NBC grab em by the kitty tape on the eave of the last debate.


I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. Clearly Trump voters didn't care about Trump's sexual assault rhetoric.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Grambler



As far as Hillary being good at being dirty, all the more reason for an investigation.


Except she's been investigated over and over and over and this investigation has nothing to do with her. I have nothing against her being investigated but this is about work Tony Podesta did for Manafort.


All the cronies were in place to stop any real investigation. The evidence is overwhelming that officials in the Obama admin colluded to block any serious investigations into Hillary, therefor your argument that she has been investigated is nothing but a farce that you have fallen for.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Fake news is probably under investigation too for trying to illegally influence the election, the infamous NBC grab em by the kitty tape on the eave of the last debate.


I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. Clearly Trump voters didn't care about Trump's sexual assault rhetoric.


NBC property was illegally passed to another media source to be strategically aired on the eave of the last debate to sway public opinion. That was a political move that the Media, namely NBC, is not allowed to do by law, which is why they did not air it.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Very appropriate.

Podesta had clear ties to Russia; let's follow the truth where it takes us.


If only you had that mentality before this story dropped.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And to clarify, Podesta had clear ties to Uranium One also.



new topics




 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join