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: 4
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.


This is conjecture, not fact. Collusion to hamper a federal probe is a punishable crime (one that the overwhelming majority of Republican representatives and the president would love to sink their teeth into). You're making the argument based on conspiratorial hearsay. Why hasn't the Republican controller House/Senate/Judiciary gone after her if what you say is true, or are they 'in' on it as well?




posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
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?


But you were so adamant in your threads that Trump and/or his associates were guilty. Why back pedal now?



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


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.


It's not like Flynn lied about his contacts with Kislyak and the administration backed up his lie until leaks to the media made it impossible to continue doing so. It's not like the FBI director was removed for not playing ball with the President and killing the investigation. It's not like after months of lying, it was revealed that the President's son and his campaign manager attended a meeting where they expected an agent of the Russian government to provide them with high level documents from the Kremlin intended to assist the President's campaign.

Right?

It's not like there were Russian trolls on Twitter with hundreds of thousands of followers tweeting pro-Trump tweets or that there were email leaks from the DNC and John Podesta, strategically parceled out at the end of the campaign for maximum effect. It's not like for months in the middle, Trump's campaign was run by a guy who has spent more than a decade working for the Kremlin-backed Party of Regions either. Or that the same guy approved the visit of a foreign policy advisor to Moscow, an advisor who the SVR had tried to recruit as an asset a few years ago (and he didn't exactly turn them down either).

But that's exactly the same in your book as Podesta's firm being one of several, contracted by Manafort's firm to do PR for the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine. Oh wait, did I just say Tony Podesta was working for Manafort? Well I guess we better add this to the Trump list of connections too.

In other news, those of on the left — and Right — who have an interest in stopping Russian influence aren't discriminating. If the investigation leads to Tony Podesta, John Podesta or Hillary Clinton — so be it. We're coming up on the mid-term elections.

Unlike President Trump, I think the majority of Americans care if the Russians are meddling in our elections and want it to stop.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: abago71

You mean Mueller is investigating Clinton associates? That reeks of impartiality and objectivity! If Mueller incites Podesta, would you be willing to accept the charges he makes against the Trump campaign?

I am confident in saying that there is a good chance that no one will be indicted.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well you wouldn't know it to watch the media, politicians or even everyday people on the left.

They claim there is no need of Hillary's connections to russia or the ukraine, or into people from both sides paying foreign agents to dig up info on trumps campaign.

No mention of Hillary taking money from russians, of her campaign manager and foundation not disclosing donations from russia, and so forth.

And as you your Russian Facebook stuff.


Hahahahahahaha!

Yeo, time to round up Facebook posters and Pokemon.

Its so funny, there has been a huge left wing bias among journalists for years, and yet left leaning people said there was no worry of this.

Now despite the fact that most msm went after trump more than any candidate in menory, and in some cases actively colluded with hillary, we are told that none of that matters, it was Facebook and Pokemon that we should worry about.

Unreal.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Uh, I'm not backpedaling at all. I've maintained the same thing all along and I continue to do so. I believe that the Russians meddled in the election on social media. I believe that the Russians were the most likely source of the emails that were published by Wikileaks. I believe that the key figure in all this is very likely to be Paul Manafort. I've even continually expressed my doubt that President Trump was aware of any collusion if it was occurring.

Though I'll admit after finding out that Donald Trump Jr took a meeting where he expected to be handed documents from the Kremlin, after being told that it was part of the Russian government's effort to get his father elected, after realizing that just hours after the meeting was setup, then candidate Trump promised a rally crowd that he had a major speech on Clinton coming up — I'm less sure.

What you're missing is how those of us on the Left don't share the cultist affection for Clinton and her team that Trump supporters for Trump and his. If Trump goes down in this, his supporters will absolutely lose their collective # to the point that I'd actually be concerned about widespread domestic terrorism. If Clinton goes down, most of us won't lose a wink of sleep. Because there's no Hillary Clinton cult of personality.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


Hahahahahahaha!

Yeo, time to round up Facebook posters and Pokemon.

Its so funny, there has been a huge left wing bias among journalists for years, and yet left leaning people said there was no worry of this.


And there you go. There's a justification to dismiss every single facet of Russian meddling. Now it's okay because there's bias in media outlets. Yeah, there's bias in right-wing media outlets too. Fox News has been dominating cable news for what? 17 years now? Fox News that up until recently had something like a 60%+ market share of cable news?

How about talk radio? Can you even name a single liberal political talk radio host? Meanwhile, how many tens of millions of listeners have Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Savage, Levin, etc got? What's the right-wing lean there? 95%?

How about Sinclair? How many TV stations do they have now? What is it? 70% of the country is getting treated to Sinclair's hard-right bent and their mandated daily far-right propaganda pieces?

Trump supporters have some way of justifying or dismissing every aspect of Russian meddling/influence... that can't be somehow linked to Clinton.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Only 7 percent of journalists say they are Republican.

www.washingtonpost.com... m=.09c1007d95d0

But I suppose almost 100 percent of Pokemon are russian, and they are far more influential.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Super?

From the same 2013 study, the number of those identifying as Democrat was 28%. Both numbers had fallen since 2002 whereas the number of those claiming "independent" had risen from 32.5% to 50.2% and those identifying as "other" was 14.6%.

In other words, about 65% claimed no party affiliation at all. So citing the study, would you conclude that the media has become far less biased since 2002 or do the usefulness of the statistics come into doubt when attempting to draw that conclusion?

Not that it's even a good measure of bias. Party registration shouldn't preclude people from unbiased reporting for one and also, not all journalists are equal in their reach — a journalist for the East Bumblef# Gazette doesn't reach a fraction of the people as Hannity. Not that Hannity is a journalist though right? In fact, how much of the "media" could be considered journalism and how do you think that ratio plays out right/left?

And that repeated Pokemon reference is disingenuously dismissive.

You know full well that the only involvement claimed to Pokemon Go was that it was pointed out that when Pokemon Go was going viral, that the operator of the website/Tumblr/Facebook group/YouTube channel/Twitter account ("Dont Shoot Us") tried to popularize its site/accounts by advertising a contest involving Pokemon Go.
edit on 2017-10-23 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

When I get to a computer I can post source after source, many from liberal outlets, discussing how journalists are overwhelmingly liberal.

Both of us know this, but you are pretending otherwise.

The amount of journalists that were against trump was even more startling.

But again, that Paul's in comparison to facebook posts and Pokemon.

We need to capture pickachu and bulbasuar, else they will get blamed again the next time liberals lose an election.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: abago71

Maybe we finally can all agree about something finally. If they both are crooked, bring em both down. Trump isn't the only idiot in politics, he is just the most obvious.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

The MSM covered Hillary's scandals just as much. We heard about her emails and Benghazi all day, everyday. What I fault the media for is ignoring Bernie. Which is being investigated.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:43 PM
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.


Hillary Clinton is a long term politician. As such in my book, she is a pathological liar and core authoritarian. If she has committed a tenth of the crimes she has been accused of and remains free, she is a brilliant criminal on par with a fictional super villain.

Spoiler; She isn’t.
edit on 23-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


she is a brilliant criminal on par with a fictional super villain.


or she knows how to work the law, she was a lawyer.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

There's also things that shouldn't be legal but are because of things like Citizens United. Dirty isn't always illegal.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: Gryphon66


she is a brilliant criminal on par with a fictional super villain.


or she knows how to work the law, she was a lawyer.



Hundreds of lawyers are in jail.

[ X ]



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

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.


And what do you think this investigation will unearth, considering it has to do with Manafort, not Hillary?



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: Gryphon66

There's also things that shouldn't be legal but are because of things like Citizens United. Dirty isn't always illegal.


Very true and an excellent point.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
What you're missing is how those of us on the Left don't share the cultist affection for Clinton and her team that Trump supporters for Trump and his. If Trump goes down in this, his supporters will absolutely lose their collective # to the point that I'd actually be concerned about widespread domestic terrorism. If Clinton goes down, most of us won't lose a wink of sleep. Because there's no Hillary Clinton cult of personality.


Well now, you're mixing apples with oranges. You are attempting to compare "the Left" with "Trump supporters," when you should be either comparing "the Left" with "the Right" or "Clinton supporters" with "Trump supporters." There is absolutely a cult of Clinton out there. There is also a political web of interconnectivity which the Clintons pull the strings on that ensures if he or she go down, they bring a sizable number of other politicians down with them, which leads diehards of those related pols to essentially defend Clinton to shield their own beloved heroes from the crowd's torches and pitchforks. Not only is the woman a proponent of globalism, her political crimes adopt the same tone, ensuring as much hardship spread around as possible if she ever truly appears in shackles before a judge as she should.



posted on Oct, 23 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

not the ones that know "what the meaning of the word 'is' is".
and i think that she does.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join