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: 13
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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!


By the way when you wonder what I mean when I claim you blatantly lie ... this is what I mean.




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

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!


By the way when you wonder what I mean when I claim you blatantly lie ... this is what I mean.


What part of this is a lie.

Did he outline exactly why trumps team was being investigated.

I can look up the exact quote if you like, but is was basically because they had relationships with foreign agents.

All of this is true.

I outlined how Hillary and her team do to.

He said it was more nuanced and that didn't apply to Hillary.

This is all true.

Again, you falsely call me a liar.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You claim that you know that Hillary took money from foreign agents. You’ve stated previously that you don’t have any evidence of that and you’ve also said that you’ve never claimed that Clinton is guilty of anything.

In your copied comment you say the opposite.

Which time were you lying?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
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?


There is an investigation into trumps team and Russia.

I do want to see it through.

My gut says that at least manafort was doing very shady things.

I am one of the only trump supporters on here that has been saying I want Mueller to continue.

I don't think what we know now about someone like trump Jr. wild be enough to arrest him. At least no more than Hillary people and many others that failed to intially disclose foreign meeting or contributions.

But if more evidence comes to ligyt, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

I have been very consistent on this.

I also said, which Gryphon think a is something to call out, that although I think there is enough evidence on this uranium one deal to investigate hillary, I am not going to call her guilty before the investigation.

I admit that like all humans I have some bias, but I am really trying to limit it.

My stance is that if dealings with Russian agents is good enough to investigate one side, it should be good enough for the other.

Some people want to say the goal posts should change to favor their team. I disagree.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You claim that you know that Hillary took money from foreign agents. You’ve stated previously that you don’t have any evidence of that and you’ve also said that you’ve never claimed that Clinton is guilty of anything.

In your copied comment you say the opposite.

Which time were you lying?


Doess taking money from foreign agents make you guilty of a crime automatically?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You claim that you know that Hillary took money from foreign agents. You’ve stated previously that you don’t have any evidence of that and you’ve also said that you’ve never claimed that Clinton is guilty of anything.

In your copied comment you say the opposite.

Which time were you lying?


Doess taking money from foreign agents make you guilty of a crime automatically?


If it doesn’t what are you worried about? Why should there be an investigation if you don’t think there’s a crime involved?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

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!


Once again, your dishonesty prevails and this ties directly to the issue of context.

Hillary and her team does not meet the same "criteria" because the circumstances and disclosure of her team's dealings are not in the same vein as people such as Manafort, Flynn and Jr.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Charles Ortel has the dope on the Hillary Foundation and in this vid connects the dots we see popping up in the past few days



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You claim that you know that Hillary took money from foreign agents. You’ve stated previously that you don’t have any evidence of that and you’ve also said that you’ve never claimed that Clinton is guilty of anything.

In your copied comment you say the opposite.

Which time were you lying?


Doess taking money from foreign agents make you guilty of a crime automatically?


If it doesn’t what are you worried about? Why should there be an investigation if you don’t think there’s a crime involved?


Because it could be a crime.

Wow, I can't believe I have to explain this to you.

And never said I didn't think a crime occured. I said until an investigation is done there isnt proof of it.
edit on 25-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

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!


Once again, your dishonesty prevails and this ties directly to the issue of context.

Hillary and her team does not meet the same "criteria" because the circumstances and disclosure of her team's dealings are not in the same vein as people such as Manafort, Flynn and Jr.


No no we heard you.

You were very clear as to wh6 trumps team needed investigated, meetings with foreign agents.

We are clear that you change that criteria when it comes to Hillary.

No need to reexplain



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You claim that you know that Hillary took money from foreign agents. You’ve stated previously that you don’t have any evidence of that and you’ve also said that you’ve never claimed that Clinton is guilty of anything.

In your copied comment you say the opposite.

Which time were you lying?


Doess taking money from foreign agents make you guilty of a crime automatically?


If it doesn’t what are you worried about? Why should there be an investigation if you don’t think there’s a crime involved?


Because it could be a crime.

Wow, I can't believe I have to explain this to you.


It is not a crime for a non-profit organization to receive funds from foreign nationals.

So what crime exactly could have been violated?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You claim that you know that Hillary took money from foreign agents. You’ve stated previously that you don’t have any evidence of that and you’ve also said that you’ve never claimed that Clinton is guilty of anything.

In your copied comment you say the opposite.

Which time were you lying?


Doess taking money from foreign agents make you guilty of a crime automatically?


If it doesn’t what are you worried about? Why should there be an investigation if you don’t think there’s a crime involved?


Because it could be a crime.

Wow, I can't believe I have to explain this to you.


It is not a crime for a non-profit organization to receive funds from foreign nationals.

So what crime exactly could have been violated?


Pay for play, failure to disclose, and the others i outlined above.

But I will turn the question to you.

It is not a crime to meet with foreign nationals.

So why is there an investigation into Trump team.?

Because it could have been more than just a meeting and a crime.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




meddling in places like Ukraine.


meddling in places like Ukraine at the behest of Monsanto - get your facts straight

www.globalresearch.ca...



The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) is helping biotech run the latest war in Ukraine. Make no mistake that what is happening in the Ukraine now is deeply tied to the interests of Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, and other big players in the poison food game. Monsanto has an office in Ukraine. While this does not shout ‘culpability’ from every corner, it is no different than the US military’s habit to place bases in places that they want to gain political control. The opening of this office coincided with land grabs with loans from the IMF and World Bank to one of the world’s most hated corporations – all in support of their biotech takeover. Previously, there was a ban on private sector land ownership in the country – but it was lifted ‘just in time’ for Monsanto to have its way with the Ukraine. In fact, a bit of political maneuvering by the IMF gave the Ukraine a $



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



No no we heard you.

You were very clear as to wh6 trumps team needed investigated, meetings with foreign agents.


Yes, foreign agents of the Russian government, one of whom is accused of being a Russian spy. Those meetings were undisclosed.



We are clear that you change that criteria when it comes to Hillary.

No need to reexplain


When did anyone on Hillary's team meet with foreign agents tied to the Russian government, whom are being accused of being a spy, and not disclosed?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Pay for play, failure to disclose, and the others i outlined above.


Again, what crimes? Cite the actual laws.



It is not a crime to meet with foreign nationals.

So why is there an investigation into Trump team.?


Because they met with foreign agents connected to the Russian government, not just foreign nationals, at least one of whom is considered a Russian spy and recruiter.

Also, it appears the WH lied about those meetings. That right there gives the impression that they were trying to hide something.
edit on 25-10-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




When did anyone on Hillary's team meet with foreign agents tied to the Russian government, whom are being accused of being a spy, and not disclosed?
Here try squaring this circle . The Podestas were a lobbying group who used their connection (Manaford) to Russia's .



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



No no we heard you.

You were very clear as to wh6 trumps team needed investigated, meetings with foreign agents.


Yes, foreign agents of the Russian government, one of whom is accused of being a Russian spy. Those meetings were undisclosed.



We are clear that you change that criteria when it comes to Hillary.

No need to reexplain


When did anyone on Hillary's team meet with foreign agents tied to the Russian government, whom are being accused of being a spy, and not disclosed?
'

Now you move the goal post again; it isn't just a foreign agent, its meeting undisclosed with spies. So I assume Bill meeting with Puting doesn't count, because Putin isnt a spy.

Or how about manafort working with the Podestas? Or how about the foundation not disclosing donations from rusains involved in the uranium one deal.

Or how about paying a foreign agent who was a spy, Steele, to then collude with Russians to get dirt on Trump.

Or how about hillary team meeting with Ukrainian officials undisclosed?

Nope, none of that matters. even though here we have proof of money changing hands, even though we have proof it was for the expressed purpose of getting dirt on their opponent, it doesn't meet your initial critieria of meeting with foreign agents.

I look forward to seeing how you will move the goal post next.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and say Trump and his team are always bad, Hillary and hers are always good.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: introvert




When did anyone on Hillary's team meet with foreign agents tied to the Russian government, whom are being accused of being a spy, and not disclosed?
Here try squaring this circle . The Podestas were a lobbying group who used their connection (Manaford) to Russia's .


John Podesta was not working for the Podesta Group when he was tied to the campaign. Correct?

Also, that Manafort connection is at this time still based on an unnamed source.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler




Again, what crimes? Cite the actual laws.



I will look them up.

I already showed that Hillary signed a letter she wouldn't allow her foundation to even give the appearance of wrong doing, which clearly it has.

Why don't you cite the exact laws that the investigation into trumps team is looking for?

Those laws will also apply to Hillarys team.





Because they met with foreign agents connected to the Russian government, not just foreign nationals, at least one of whom is considered a Russian spy and recruiter.

Also, it appears the WH lied about those meetings. That right there gives the impression that they were trying to hide something.


Sp Putin doesn't meet that criteria?

Ok got it.

Oh and hilarrys team lied about paying for the dossier. So I assume you now favor an investigation into this
edit on 25-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

What is this letter that you keep harping about that Clinton signed? When? Where? Why?

Give us a link.




top topics



 
55
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join