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.

 

Clinton pushes back on Russian uranium deal reports: 'Baloney'

page: 11
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66
Let me sum up your post.

"Yes again you are right will all of the facts you listed. I will again refuse to scomment on them, and instaed call you a liar"

Great job!



Resorting to straw man arguments already? You lied, you got caught, and now you're trying to blow a smoke screen up.

Let me know when you calm down enough to speak rationally.


Oh so you did address the points i raised.

Can you link me where that happened?


Why would I respond to points that have proven to be based on your own dishonesty? Did you or did you not state clearly and openly that "You have as much evidence for trump people money laundering as I do against hillary, none."

Did you say that or not?


How many times do I have to explain this to you.

I cant not say 100% that I know hillary is guilty of pay to play or any other crime in this uranium one deal. There is a lot of evidence to warrant an investigation.

I presented it to you over and over again, and you ignore it.

You wear the fact that you can proudly announce guilt of Trump people with no evidence as some badge of honor.

You are making the claim that because I will not declare Hillary guilty without an investigation, that somehow all of the evidence that warrants that investigation should be ignored.

I will ask you again, since you are so sure some people in Trumps campaign are guilty, show me the evidence that prves their guilt.




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

I expect Mueller to make his report. It will call for indictments of Manafort, Flynn, and Cohen. Money laundering, acting as an undeclared agent of a foreign power, falsifying documents. Just a strong enough whiff of treason that they will cut major deals. Then Trump supporters will finally have to face the facts about their orange calf.


Looks like manafort may on fact be charged. And perhaps the Podestas.

Then you will have to face the facts about your team, that they were the ones knowingly peddling russian influence for years.


They are not my team. Anyone bought by the Russians illegally is the team I want to play against. If Hillary is a Russian agent, she should hang. If Trump is a Russian agent, he should hang. Got the picture? At this point, it is Team Trump that should be getting their dancing shoes on, because they will soon be dancing the Tyburn Jig.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

So Mueller is not going to indicate Trump as of your own predictions ? Despite the fact that he didn't hide going after him.

That won't be of any help for an impeachment ...

Cohen, Flynn and Manafort. That's it ? And which charges do you expect against them ?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Since when does legal fees= compiling a dossier with the help of a British ex-spy? Aren't you jumping to the sort of conclusions the way you accuse others of doing?


We know from bank records that Elias and Coie hired Fusion GPS. We know that they were retained by Hillarys campaign.

If you want to naively believe that somehow Hillarys campaign didn't pay for this, so be it.

Glad to have you on record.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler


The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father," an email identified as being from Goldstone said. It was the first email in the chain released by Trump Jr., who helped during his father's presidential campaign but is not part of his White House staff.

"This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump -- helped along by Aras and Emin."


Donny Junior had every reason to believe that he was receiving intelligence from a hostile foreign power. Did he rush to the FBI to expose the plot? Nope:

Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer.


www.foxnews.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

What info did he get to report to the FBI?

What law did he break?

Why is he not in jail if this is obvious proof he is guilty?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So you are just going to assume that they paid fusion to co pile a bogus dossier? Why?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

He did not report the advance to the appropriate authorities while filing for security clearance. Like Manafort and Flynn. That is the law they all actually broke. His response proves intent to collaborate with a hostile foreign government, even if the meetings bore no fruit. It was a set up, and he fell for it. That's how the KGB used to work, and it looks like the same friendly service with a new name.

ETA: Why do you think that the Justice Department would be hesitant to charge the son of their Executive Officer with... treason?
edit on 25-10-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Why is he not in jail if this is obvious proof he is guilty?


I've never understood that line of reasoning.

You don't drop charges on people in the middle of an investigation. You finish the investigation, get all of your ducks in a row and then start filing charges.

So to ask why he is not in jail yet is highly illogical.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Indicting the President is a tricky Constitutional issue. He would need to be removed from office before he could be officially tried for a crime. Better to indict those who can be tried and get them to provide evidence leading to impeachment and removal from office. I should have thought that obvious, but I forget sometimes that you are not an American.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

He did not report the advance to the appropriate authorities while filing for security clearance. Like Manafort and Flynn. That is the law they all actually broke. His response proves intent to collaborate with a hostile foreign government, even if the meetings bore no fruit. It was a set up, and he fell for it. That's how the KGB used to work, and it looks like the same friendly service with a new name.

ETA: Why do you think that the Justice Department would be hesitant to charge the son of their Executive Officer with... treason?


This is not proof of guilt. There is just as much evidence as to Hillarys proof of guilt. They failed to disclose donations from people involved in the uranium one deal to the foundation.

We have proof that Hillarys campaign worked with the Ukraine and did get intel to use against trump. It appears that Hllarys campaign paid for thee dossier which used foreign agents to smear Trump.

We had proof that to the letter of the law, Hillary broke the law with her email server.

My point to Gryphon was that I am not ready to call anyone guilty for the uranium one fiasco, I just think there is evidence there should be an investigation. Yes, we certainly have ad much proof as we do with Don jr. that the foundation did in fact break the law by not disclosing donations, but I am referncing a more serious crime, mcuh as the same in the don jr. case.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Why is he not in jail if this is obvious proof he is guilty?


I've never understood that line of reasoning.

You don't drop charges on people in the middle of an investigation. You finish the investigation, get all of your ducks in a row and then start filing charges.

So to ask why he is not in jail yet is highly illogical.


Ok we have proof that the clinton foundation didn't disclose donations.

100 % proof of guilt.

So why just the focus on Don Jr. not filling out the correct paperwork?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

But then why extend the scope of the investigation to the president ? To make sure there is no stone left unturned maybe ... Then why didn't he interview Sessions ?

It is just that every single claim around Trump personal responsability could be dismissed by the Mueller investigation finding nothing about him ...





edit on 25-10-2017 by theultimatebelgianjoke because: -



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

Ok we have proof that the clinton foundation didn't disclose donations.

100 % proof of guilt.

So why just the focus on Don Jr. not filling out the correct paperwork?


"100% proof of guilt" of what exactly?

Be specific.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

He did not report the advance to the appropriate authorities while filing for security clearance. Like Manafort and Flynn. That is the law they all actually broke. His response proves intent to collaborate with a hostile foreign government, even if the meetings bore no fruit. It was a set up, and he fell for it. That's how the KGB used to work, and it looks like the same friendly service with a new name.

ETA: Why do you think that the Justice Department would be hesitant to charge the son of their Executive Officer with... treason?


This is not proof of guilt. There is just as much evidence as to Hillarys proof of guilt. They failed to disclose donations from people involved in the uranium one deal to the foundation.

We have proof that Hillarys campaign worked with the Ukraine and did get intel to use against trump. It appears that Hllarys campaign paid for thee dossier which used foreign agents to smear Trump.

We had proof that to the letter of the law, Hillary broke the law with her email server.

My point to Gryphon was that I am not ready to call anyone guilty for the uranium one fiasco, I just think there is evidence there should be an investigation. Yes, we certainly have ad much proof as we do with Don jr. that the foundation did in fact break the law by not disclosing donations, but I am referncing a more serious crime, mcuh as the same in the don jr. case.


Grambler, didn't you say "You have as much evidence for trump people money laundering as I do against hillary, none." to me just last evening?

Which time were you being dishonest ... then or now?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

Ok we have proof that the clinton foundation didn't disclose donations.

100 % proof of guilt.

So why just the focus on Don Jr. not filling out the correct paperwork?


"100% proof of guilt" of what exactly?

Be specific.


Failing to disclose funds from a foreign entity.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

He did not report the advance to the appropriate authorities while filing for security clearance. Like Manafort and Flynn. That is the law they all actually broke. His response proves intent to collaborate with a hostile foreign government, even if the meetings bore no fruit. It was a set up, and he fell for it. That's how the KGB used to work, and it looks like the same friendly service with a new name.

ETA: Why do you think that the Justice Department would be hesitant to charge the son of their Executive Officer with... treason?


This is not proof of guilt. There is just as much evidence as to Hillarys proof of guilt. They failed to disclose donations from people involved in the uranium one deal to the foundation.

We have proof that Hillarys campaign worked with the Ukraine and did get intel to use against trump. It appears that Hllarys campaign paid for thee dossier which used foreign agents to smear Trump.

We had proof that to the letter of the law, Hillary broke the law with her email server.

My point to Gryphon was that I am not ready to call anyone guilty for the uranium one fiasco, I just think there is evidence there should be an investigation. Yes, we certainly have ad much proof as we do with Don jr. that the foundation did in fact break the law by not disclosing donations, but I am referncing a more serious crime, mcuh as the same in the don jr. case.


Grambler, didn't you say "You have as much evidence for trump people money laundering as I do against hillary, none." to me just last evening?

Which time were you being dishonest ... then or now?


I have explained to you over and over again what I meant.

You have yet to provide any evidence of trump or anyone's guilt.

At best you have evidence that warrants an investigation

I am sorry you find it so hard to believe that many people aren't like you and claim to know of someone's guilt before an investigation takes place.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

He did not report the advance to the appropriate authorities while filing for security clearance. Like Manafort and Flynn. That is the law they all actually broke. His response proves intent to collaborate with a hostile foreign government, even if the meetings bore no fruit. It was a set up, and he fell for it. That's how the KGB used to work, and it looks like the same friendly service with a new name.

ETA: Why do you think that the Justice Department would be hesitant to charge the son of their Executive Officer with... treason?


This is not proof of guilt. There is just as much evidence as to Hillarys proof of guilt. They failed to disclose donations from people involved in the uranium one deal to the foundation.

We have proof that Hillarys campaign worked with the Ukraine and did get intel to use against trump. It appears that Hllarys campaign paid for thee dossier which used foreign agents to smear Trump.

We had proof that to the letter of the law, Hillary broke the law with her email server.

My point to Gryphon was that I am not ready to call anyone guilty for the uranium one fiasco, I just think there is evidence there should be an investigation. Yes, we certainly have ad much proof as we do with Don jr. that the foundation did in fact break the law by not disclosing donations, but I am referncing a more serious crime, mcuh as the same in the don jr. case.


Grambler, didn't you say "You have as much evidence for trump people money laundering as I do against hillary, none." to me just last evening?

Which time were you being dishonest ... then or now?


I have explained to you over and over again what I meant.

You have yet to provide any evidence of trump or anyone's guilt.

At best you have evidence that warrants an investigation

I am sorry you find it so hard to believe that many people aren't like you and claim to know of someone's guilt before an investigation takes place.



Yes, you realized your mistake in telling the truth about zero evidence against Clinton.

I haven't provided any evidence about Trump because I haven't said Trump is guilty of anything.

You claim fifty times daily that Clinton, Obama and the rest are guilty ... and you know it; you slipped up last night and spoke the truth because you were tired and you know that to.

I find this level of continuing direct lies very boring; it's really not worth my time to bicker.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

He did not report the advance to the appropriate authorities while filing for security clearance. Like Manafort and Flynn. That is the law they all actually broke. His response proves intent to collaborate with a hostile foreign government, even if the meetings bore no fruit. It was a set up, and he fell for it. That's how the KGB used to work, and it looks like the same friendly service with a new name.

ETA: Why do you think that the Justice Department would be hesitant to charge the son of their Executive Officer with... treason?


This is not proof of guilt. There is just as much evidence as to Hillarys proof of guilt. They failed to disclose donations from people involved in the uranium one deal to the foundation.

We have proof that Hillarys campaign worked with the Ukraine and did get intel to use against trump. It appears that Hllarys campaign paid for thee dossier which used foreign agents to smear Trump.

We had proof that to the letter of the law, Hillary broke the law with her email server.

My point to Gryphon was that I am not ready to call anyone guilty for the uranium one fiasco, I just think there is evidence there should be an investigation. Yes, we certainly have ad much proof as we do with Don jr. that the foundation did in fact break the law by not disclosing donations, but I am referncing a more serious crime, mcuh as the same in the don jr. case.


Grambler, didn't you say "You have as much evidence for trump people money laundering as I do against hillary, none." to me just last evening?

Which time were you being dishonest ... then or now?


I have explained to you over and over again what I meant.

You have yet to provide any evidence of trump or anyone's guilt.

At best you have evidence that warrants an investigation

I am sorry you find it so hard to believe that many people aren't like you and claim to know of someone's guilt before an investigation takes place.



Yes, you realized your mistake in telling the truth about zero evidence against Clinton.

I haven't provided any evidence about Trump because I haven't said Trump is guilty of anything.

You claim fifty times daily that Clinton, Obama and the rest are guilty ... and you know it; you slipped up last night and spoke the truth because you were tired and you know that to.

I find this level of continuing direct lies very boring; it's really not worth my time to bicker.

You have said trump people are guilty.

Pick any day of your choosing and quote the 50 times I said Obama or Hillary are guilty.

Or is this another lie?

I said over and over agian, and continue to say that regarding the uranium one deal, I am not convinced of Hillary's guilt.

However, there is more that enough evidence to warrant a full investigation.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Why is he not in jail if this is obvious proof he is guilty?


I've never understood that line of reasoning.

You don't drop charges on people in the middle of an investigation. You finish the investigation, get all of your ducks in a row and then start filing charges.

So to ask why he is not in jail yet is highly illogical.


Ok we have proof that the clinton foundation didn't disclose donations.

100 % proof of guilt.

So why just the focus on Don Jr. not filling out the correct paperwork?


That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

Again, to ask why charges have not been filed, while they still in the middle of an investigation, is highly illogical and a piss poor debate tactic.




top topics



 
55
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join