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: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I've said that Manafort, Trump Jr., Flynn, and the rest obviously colluded with Russia during and just after the campaign and that's simply a fact by their own self-admissions. You can't deny the blatantly obvious and maintain any level of even the appearance of integrity.

People here know what you've said, G. Fifty times a day was obviously metaphorical to make the point.

I'll ask you the question again about U1 ... maybe you'll answer this time. What are we investigating? What crime do you think has been committed? If you don't have any evidence of Hillary Clinton's guilt ... who are you going after? What would this investigation achieve?
edit on 25-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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.


Yes this was my point.

What is it you always say, let's wait and see what the 8investigations says.

Gryphon is somehow trying to make the point that me not knowing if Hillary is guilty in the uranium one deal somehow means I have admitted there is no evidence worth looking at.

My point is if this statement is somehow wrong, then show me proof of anyone on trumps teams guilt.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It could be unlawful collusion, pay to play, intentionally evidence from congress.

I outlined all of the reasons there should be an imvestigation, you have ignored.

As far as collusion by the people you mention, yes we see that hillarys campaign, including the podestas and bill, have admitted to Russian collisions well.

In fact, unlike with Don jr, we know they took money from russians.

What are you hoping am investigation of them leads to?

Oh that's right, the exact same thing one into Hillary would.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I quoted what you said about Clinton. You stated you have zero evidence ... none ... late last evening while you have been starting threads for days pimping the articles at The Hill.

You stated there was no evidence against Clinton. Your words which I have had to remind you of.
edit on 25-10-2017 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

It could be unlawful collusion, pay to play, intentionally evidence from congress.

I outlined all of the reasons there should be an imvestigation, you have ignored.

As far as collusion by the people you mention, yes we see that hillarys campaign, including the podestas and bill, have admitted to Russian collisions well.

In fact, unlike with Don jr, we know they took money from russians.

What are you hoping am investigation of them leads to?

Oh that's right, the exact same thing one into Hillary would.



Unlawful collusion? In what way? Between who and who?

Pay to play? What law regards that again?

Intentionally doing something with evidence and Congress. Did you mean hiding or concealing or something like that?

You mean in the investigation that was on going from 2009 to 2015? Pfft.

Who are the alleged accused here? Surely you can name those off.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

It could be unlawful collusion, pay to play, intentionally evidence from congress.

I outlined all of the reasons there should be an imvestigation, you have ignored.

As far as collusion by the people you mention, yes we see that hillarys campaign, including the podestas and bill, have admitted to Russian collisions well.

In fact, unlike with Don jr, we know they took money from russians.

What are you hoping am investigation of them leads to?

Oh that's right, the exact same thing one into Hillary would.



Unlawful collusion? In what way? Between who and who?

Pay to play? What law regards that again?

Intentionally doing something with evidence and Congress. Did you mean hiding or concealing or something like that?

You mean in the investigation that was on going from 2009 to 2015? Pfft.

Who are the alleged accused here? Surely you can name those off.


First what crimes is Mueller investigation looking at?

You still haven't answered.

Collusion between Hilary people and Russians.

Pay to play as in getting money from people in the uranium one deal to push for allowing that deal.

Yes, oBama admin hiding the fact that there was a criminal investigation of people involved in the deal before it was approved.

Alleged accused include Obama for the reasons above, hillary, bill, her team.

You know all of this though.

Plus there is the question of money laundering seeing as how the foundation did not properly disxliae donations



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

My god, you really don't have even the most basic info here? Let's plunk the magic Googleator and see what we find, eh?

2017 Special Counsel Investigation - Wiki



The 2017 Special Counsel investigation is an investigation in the United States led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel, exploring any coordination between Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government as part of the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and related matters that arise in the course of this investigation. Mueller has assembled a team of attorneys to conduct the investigation.


Who are "Hillary people"? Which "Hillary people"? Specifically ... I'm beginning to think you don't have any basis for any of this garbage.

What law covers "pay to play"? What do you mean specifically and what law are you alleging is broken?

The Obama Administration didn't "hide" anything that we know of. The investigation didn't conclude until 2015. The Uranium One merger was approved in 2010. Do I need to mention time travel again? That seems to be your only option.

So you're going to shotgun Obama, Hillary, Bill, their team as a general group? WHAT DID ANY OF THEM ALLEGEDLY DO THEN?

You've got nothing. I submit you know that. You're here furthering the efforts of the media echo chamber ... nothing more.

It's painfully obvious you have no idea of what you're talking about. No specific crimes. No specific connections between crimes and individuals. Nothing but regurgitant and bile from the fringe right-wing media.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So Mueller investigation into trumps campaign working with Russia is great.

But an investigation into Hillary and possible pay to play allegations is worthless.

Did hillary sign a document saying she wouldn't allow the foundation to even give the appearance of conflict of interest?

She did.

It is obviously a crime to accept bribes to push for specific policies.

Your feigning ignorance of this is at this point predictable.

Yes it should also be looked at as to rather the fbi and Obama doj purposefully withheld relevant info to cfius and c9ngress to help get Obama's agenda done.

Again, we know you, Mr. Not an Obama fan has no interest in getting to the bottom of these questions, but the rest of us do.

Now shouldn't you be railing against Russian Facebook ads at this point?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
I'll take a bet that Clinton will die before she ever sees the inside of courtroom, never mind a prison cell.


That's right, they might Seth Rich her.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

So Mueller investigation into trumps campaign working with Russia is great.

But an investigation into Hillary and possible pay to play allegations is worthless.



I don't remember making that claim; can you remind me?


originally posted by: Grambler

Did hillary sign a document saying she wouldn't allow the foundation to even give the appearance of conflict of interest?

She did.



Cue that up for us then, so we can all understand what it actually says; your track record isn't great this morning.


originally posted by: Grambler

It is obviously a crime to accept bribes to push for specific policies.



So you've found new evidence of Hillary Clinton's crimes that you didn't have last evening, when you said there's no evidence?


originally posted by: Grambler

Your feigning ignorance of this is at this point predictable.



Ignorance of what? What the voices in your head are telling you that Clinton has done that you have no evidence for?

One of us is confused, indeed.


originally posted by: Grambler

Yes it should also be looked at as to rather the fbi and Obama doj purposefully withheld relevant info to cfius and c9ngress to help get Obama's agenda done.

Again, we know you, Mr. Not an Obama fan has no interest in getting to the bottom of these questions, but the rest of us do.

Now shouldn't you be railing against Russian Facebook ads at this point?


Congress wasn't involved in the Uranium One deal. You have zero evidence that an investigation that started in 2009 and didn't end until 2015 had any bearing on a decision made in 2010.

Shouldn't you be wiping the eggs off your face? It turns out that stupid remarks about Pokemon and Facebook are your best arguments ... and that my friend is sad, very sad.

Very sad.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The only one that should be embarrassed in the one squirming on thread after thread as to why trump people dealing with Russians is bad, but Hillary doing it is ok.


a Jan. 5, 2009, letter to the State Department, Clinton laid out what she would personally do to avoid ethical issues when it came to the Clinton Foundation and its subsidiaries. She said she would avoid the following things without obtaining a waiver or qualifying for an exemption.

She wrote: "I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter..."

"...that has a direct and predictable effect on my financial interests or those of any person whose interests are imputed to me."
"...that has a direct and predictable effect upon this foundation."
"...involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or The Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party."
"...that has a direct and predictable effect upon [Bill Clinton's] compensation from persons or entities that pay him."
"...involving specific parties in which a client of my spouse is a party or represents a party

www.google.com... the-state-department-explained/

Again as you have demonstrated over and 9her you have no reading comprehension.

I have said over and over again that there is evidence to warrant an investogation, but unlike you I am not ready to call someone guilty before an investigation.

As far as Obama hiding info, fine leave c9ingress out of it.

Did the doj and fbi tell the members that voted for uranium one the details of the ongoing criminal investigation.

You are showing what a hypocrite you are over and over and over again.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Gryphon is somehow trying to make the point that me not knowing if Hillary is guilty in the uranium one deal somehow means I have admitted there is no evidence worth looking at.


No. I believe his point is that you are calling for investigations, but have yet to tell us what crime she is suspected of committing that would warrant an investigation. Moreover, you have not provided clear evidence that suggests a crime even occurred in the first place.



My point is if this statement is somehow wrong, then show me proof of anyone on trumps teams guilt.


And therein lies your problem. You are trying to say one situation is somehow equal or similar to the other. They are not comparable.

You are conflating the issues in order to push the narrative that if Hillary did nothing wrong in her situation, therefore Trump and friends could not have done anything wrong either.

That is not logical and that is not how this works.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke


But then why extend the scope of the investigation to the president ?


Donald Trump is the subject of the investigation. By assembling evidence against his associates, Mueller gains leverage against Trump, as I believe I have explained several times now. Perhaps you should read Liddell Hart's book on strategy to help you understand the importance of indirectness.


To make sure there is no stone left unturned maybe ... Then why didn't he interview Sessions ?


What's your hurry? Sessions knows he will be interviewed eventually. Gives him plenty of time to reflect.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Clinton and Lavrov love fest




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Saying you have evidence over and over again is not evidence.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: burnsE

Yes, Obama had the silly notion that it was possible to be friends with Putin. The "reset" failed, and the mistaken translation was something of an omen, wasn't it? Now explain why doing business with Russia, when the official policy of the government was to do business with Russia, would be a crime?

Now, of course, we have sanctions against Russia, which means we are in an undeclared war. No country imposes sanctions on allies, only enemies.
edit on 25-10-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Saying you have evidence over and over again is not evidence.


Right


That's wh6 I outlined it all on the last page and page 2.

Saying I don't have evidence without addressing the evidence I provided proves nothing.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Saying you have evidence over and over again is not evidence.


Right


That's wh6 I outlined it all on the last page and page 2.

Saying I don't have evidence without addressing the evidence I provided proves nothing.


As has been stated before, what you have presented is highly circumstantial and lacks complete context.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

Saying you have evidence over and over again is not evidence.


Right


That's wh6 I outlined it all on the last page and page 2.

Saying I don't have evidence without addressing the evidence I provided proves nothing.


As has been stated before, what you have presented is highly circumstantial and lacks complete context.


Wha5 you have shown is that trumps team needed to be investigated for their relationship with foreign agents.

When shown that hillary and her team not only meet that criteria, but have admitted to taking money from them you moved the goal post and said it shouldn't apply to them.

Good job!



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I believe that if there is evidence of illegal dealings with Russia, Clinton should be investigated. Now, since there is overwhelming evidence that members of Trump's campaign have not only had illegal contacts with Russia, they have attempted to cover them up, don't you agree that it is a good thing for the security and well being of the United States and its citizens that these connections be thoroughly investigated and any wrongdoing exposed and prosecuted?




top topics



 
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join