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: 14
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

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



Now you move the goal post again; it isn't just a foreign agent, its meeting undisclosed with spies.


Those are the nuances we discussed.

So whom exactly did Clinton meet with, spy or not, during her campaign that was not disclosed to the proper authorities?



So I assume Bill meeting with Puting doesn't count, because Putin isnt a spy.


No. It doesn't count because Bill did not play an official role in the campaign.



Or how about manafort working with the Podestas?


Has that been proven?



Or how about the foundation not disclosing donations from rusains involved in the uranium one deal.


That's the foundation's problem, not Hillary's. She did not have anything to do with the Foundation during her time at the SD.



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


They paid Steele directly? Well, that's a new one. I thought they paid Fusion GPS, an American company.



Or how about hillary team meeting with Ukrainian officials undisclosed?


Are you referring to Chalupa? If so, she was a DNC rep and she openly admitted that she did what she did own her own. She shared it with the DNC and it went no where.



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.


Of course it's not the same as actually meeting with foreign agents. It's those small difference that make all the difference.



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.


Why do you have to be so ridiculous?




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



I will look them up.


Jesus. So you don't even know what laws you think she may have, could of violated? But you want an investigation just for #s and giggles?



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.


I have never seen such a letter. Also, what law is she violating in giving the appearance of wrongdoing?



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


11 CFR 110.20 (h) is a start, considering Trump Jr's actions. But I highly doubt that will stick.

How about potential obstruction of justice for Comey's firing?



Those laws will also apply to Hillarys team.


How so?



Sp Putin doesn't meet that criteria? Ok got it.


He met with Bill. Not any official with the campaign.



Oh and hilarrys team lied about paying for the dossier. So I assume you now favor an investigation into this


What law would that violate?

It seems like you just want to investigate everything just for the hell of it, even if it doesn't violate any law if true.

Very desperate, or nutty or your part.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Perhaps, but even some of us liberals are thinking there might be more evidence for Russia/Dems/Clinton connections than with Trump. That does matter you know. I'm still waiting for solid evidence of trump collusion with Russia.


This is the point.

I still think that there is shadiness with people like Manafort. If he or any other Trump connected person, even trump himself are guilty, then prosecute them to the same extent.

My contention is just that we should hold all sides to the same standard when it comes to reasons to investigate and the voracity of the investigations.

It seems clear to me that this Uranium One deal and Podesta group lobbying at least meet the threshold that was given for the special investigator into Trump.

Therefore we should see an investigation of at least the same power as that for Trumps admin.

Yet some of the people that screamed loudest about Russian influence are fighting tooth and nail against that, including Hillary.

This is what is ridiculous.
Right, I'm one for rooting out corruption across the board.

People need to stop seeing this as a partisan issue and look at their own side.
edit on 25-10-2017 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I see you're feeling my pain.

She's guilty, she's not guilty, there's plenty of evidence, there's no evidence, we need an investigation, but no laws are named that have been broken ...




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

I see you're feeling my pain.

She's guilty, she's not guilty, there's plenty of evidence, there's no evidence, we need an investigation, but no laws are named that have been broken ...

Sure, but this sounds just like the Trumpers defending trump against Russian allegations.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Does it?

I thought this was about Uranium One...



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

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

Give us a link.


I know we have been snarky to each other.

I still think you are crazy, but no hard feelings and I enjoy these conversations (and with Introvert and others too).

Anyways, here is a link to a pdf of the agreement.

www.judicialwatch.org...



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Did I miss Hilary’s signature?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert


No. It doesn't count because Bill did not play an official role in the campaign.



You have officially jumped the shark. Unbelievable.




Has that been proven?



Yes.

www.cnn.com...




That's the foundation's problem, not Hillary's. She did not have anything to do with the Foundation during her time at the SD.



Unreal. This is exactly what I am talking about. The foundation doesnt count because hillary didnt have connections to it. Bill clinton doesnt count because he wasnt involved in the campaign.

You are being ridiculous.





They paid Steele directly? Well, that's a new one. I thought they paid Fusion GPS, an American company.



So as long as you use a middle man, you can pay any foreign country for collusion?

This is absurd.




Are you referring to Chalupa? If so, she was a DNC rep and she openly admitted that she did what she did own her own. She shared it with the DNC and it went no where.



So a DNC person admitted to collusing with a foreign country. trunmp kr.s meeting went no where, but that didnt stop people for screaming about it.

In fact, do you have any evidence of anyone involved with trump having a meeting with foreign agents that went anywhere?




Of course it's not the same as actually meeting with foreign agents. It's those small difference that make all the difference.


Hillarys husband met with Putin, and you don't consider that applicable here. Nuff said about your credibility.





Why do you have to be so ridiculous?



Me ridiculous. You are the one saying Bill clintons meetings dont matter because he wasnt involved ion the campaign, and the clinton foundation shouldnt be tied to hillary.

You are setting the bar for ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Did I miss Hillary’s signature on the agreement you linked?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Did I miss Hillary’s signature on the agreement you linked?


Hahaha. Well I will have to see if she did sign that.

Its ieelevant, it is signed by leaders of the foundation saying that Hillary would not even goive the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Is it your contention that the foundation signed this, Hillary then said "Nope I refuse to abide by this" and went about her business.
It appears Hillary agreed to the agreement and heard her associates and layer sign it.



THE MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING

The “Memo of Understanding” that Hillary Clinton reached with the Obama administration had two main objectives:

-- to prohibit President Clinton from soliciting funds or accepting foreign-government contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI);

-- to disclose foreign countries that INCREASED their commitments to all Clinton Foundation entities, or that became a NEW contributor

(The memo of understanding was signed by Valerie Jarrett and Bruce Lindsey of the Clinton Foundation. It also was under supervision by John Kerry and Dick Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


www.nbcnews.com...



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

HAHAH hahaha ... wait ... what?

You've been claiming all morning that Hillary Clinton signed some letter guaranteeing that nothing would happen to compromise the office of the SOS in regard to the Clinton Foundation ... and what you provided me is a statement between the Clinton Foundation and the Office of the President-Elect (Obama) clarifying relationships etc?

This is what I've come to expect from you.

I've said what I've said. What I will say now is that as you have admitted there is ZERO evidence that Hillary Clinton did anything wrong in connection with the Uranium One deal. Nothing, nada, zippo. The fact that you and others here are glad to make generalized dishonest comments (like the multiple times you stated that Clinton signed a letter) etc. is the most telling part of all. If you had anything (and you still haven't named the alleged crimes that Clinton supposedly committed that you have no evidence for) you wouldn't have to resort to these distortions and innuendoes.

I happen to know a bit about what the various Clinton charities accomplish worldwide. The constant and stupid remarks that the Clinton Foundation is just some slush fund for Bill and Hillary is simply ABSURD.

That's one too many lies I've caught you in today Grambler. No more interest in wasting time on your posts.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It wasn't a lie. I read a source that said she signed it.

Instead her foundation chair signed it and she agree to adhere to it.

You have lied constantly today.

You said I say hillarus is guilty 50 times a day, that's a lie. You said ivlied about introvert saying the crieteria for having an inevestigation was meeting foreign agents, but then saying that didn't apply to Hillary.

You lied on other threads about me.

You have been exposed as someone who finds trumps team meetings with Hillary troubling, but not Hillary's.

You want ev that Hillary agreed to an agreement to not have the appearance of a conflict of intereat, and then want to focus only on that her foundation signed it Not her.

You are a partisan hack, but it's cool.

Have fun posting on all these threads trying to deflect for your team.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: network dude

NetworkDude: I can tell by your coming down on the right side of many issues that you are a genuine American... That is, not a troll or sputnik. How does it feel to receive nine stars and six flags from anonymous, silent members within half an hour of posting a domestic political snipe at six or seven o'clock in the morning? Does it ring any alarm bells? It certainly would if it happened to me.


Damn bro, why you got to bring me into this?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You have officially jumped the shark. Unbelievable.


Well, it is true, is it not? Bill Clinton was not in any official role in the campaign, as far as I know.



Yes.


Very interesting. It seems The Podesta Group will have to answer for that. You link also reveals that John Podesta is no longer affiliated with the group and was not during the campaign.

So I wonder how that is relevant to Clinton's issues.



Unreal. This is exactly what I am talking about. The foundation doesnt count because hillary didnt have connections to it. Bill clinton doesnt count because he wasnt involved in the campaign.

You are being ridiculous.


Of course you think it's ridiculous because you cannot understand that it is those very small, yet distinct nuances that make a world of difference.

Hillary separated herself from the foundation and her position does not dictate what her husband can do with the Foundation, as long as there is no overlap. He was not part of the campaign and whom he met during his travels for the Foundation is irrelevant, unless you can prove she stepped over some line, which has not been proven in the slightest.



So as long as you use a middle man, you can pay any foreign country for collusion?

This is absurd.


Steele is not a country. He was a contractor/employee for Fusion.

The DNC campaign hired Fusion to do the job and they contracted Steele to do some of the work for them.

That is hardly the same as paying money directly to a foreign agent to dig up dirt on a political opponent.



So a DNC person admitted to collusing with a foreign country.


Jesus man. No. She went on her own free will and talked to the Ukrainian folks at the Embassy in the US. They spoke openly about Manafort and she then took that info to the DNC, where it died on the vine. Manafort was not running for office and was not their political opponent.

That is not colluding with a foreign country. By definition, that is not collusion.

Talk about ridiculous.



trunmp kr.s meeting went no where, but that didnt stop people for screaming about it.


So? What's your point? It appears you are doing the same damned thing.



In fact, do you have any evidence of anyone involved with trump having a meeting with foreign agents that went anywhere?


That went anywhere? Talk about moving goalposts.

You really are having a hrad time understanding the differences here, aren't you?

One was a DNC staffer that was not connected to the campaign that went on her own to talk to people at the Ukrainian embassy about Manafort, people which she knew, and it didn't go anywhere. The DNC didn't use any of the info.

Trump Jr. agreed to meet with Russians, one of whom was considered a potential spy, under the notion that they would receive damaging info on Clinton as a gift from the Russians, which could potentially violate the law I previously cited.

And you think it's logical to compare the two?





Hillarys husband met with Putin, and you don't consider that applicable here. Nuff said about your credibility.


Oh no! Her husband met Putin!

How is that illegal exactly?



Me ridiculous. You are the one saying Bill clintons meetings dont matter because he wasnt involved ion the campaign, and the clinton foundation shouldnt be tied to hillary.

You are setting the bar for ridiculous.


The meetings do not matter unless you can show there was something nefarious that came out of those meetings that directly benefited Hillary and the campaign.

Otherwise, it is useless in this debate.

Well, it's not really a debate. It's a couple of us trying to bring reasonable assertions to the table, while you use logical fallacies and silliness to perpetuate nonsensical connections and false equivalencies.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
It is really funny to watch people's contortions trying to
defend a two time loser who will not be running again.

You would think she was Mother Theresa to some.

Although, I just read that even a year later many
staff members are still being paid from her campaign.



When one donates to the DNC, one is merely
donating to fake news.
edit on 25-10-2017 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Well, you did lie about what I said considering interaction with foreign agents and foreign nationals, and I have clarified that for you many times. Yet you keep with the same narrative. But lie is a harsh word. Let's say that you are, at the very least, intentionally misrepresenting what I said for narrative's sake.

Otherwise, you must be stupid, enough so that you cannot understand the clarifications and distinctions I have made. But I don't want to think you are stupid.

So the most logical explanation is that you're dishonest and partisan.

You avoided actually citing a law that she potentially could have violated when asked, yet when you had the same request...it was provided for you.

You also rely on a premise of guilt by association and collective responsibility. Which is fallacious in and of itself.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
It is really funny to watch people's contortions trying to
defend a two time loser who will not be running again.

You would think she was Mother Theresa to some.

Although, I just read that even a year later many
staff members are still being paid from her campaign.



When one donates to the DNC, one is merely
donating to fake news.


You really think this has anything to do with defending Clinton?

It's about the logic being used to come to these conclusions.

I'm not surprised that you guys don't understand that, even though it's been stated quite a few times.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   

REMINDER


www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Political Mud Pit is not a safe space for trolling for laughs. It's not a place to abuse fellow members. It's not a place to post every inane story you just want to rage about. It's not a place to spam off topic content.

This is simple: The mud pit is not a place where members can personally insult each other. You can rip each other's politics up but you can't get personal just to slag someone you don't like. Additionally, posts must be relevant to the stated thread topic.

Going forward, please be advised that failure to adhere to the stated posting guidelines of this forum will result in staff action against your account, possibly including post-bans and account terminations. Additionally, political trolling outside of the confines of the Political Mud Pit is strictly forbidden and will also be actioned accordingly.


and, as always:
Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

This is dumb.

Yes, a dnc person meeting with Ukraine to get dirt on trumps team is as much collusion as has been claimed by trump Jr and others.

Yes, Hillary's husband meeting with putin is as big a deal as anything claimed of trumps team. And yes, bill was not only involved strategically in the campaign, but openly campaigned for her, and for you to claim you don't know this is ridiculous.

Yes, the podestas are just as connected to Hillary as manafort was to trump.

And you claim it's only important if Hillary got something from these meetings.

Please show me what was given to trump through any of this supposed collusion.

edit on 25-10-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join