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: 15
55
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
She is absolutely right. The deal was made legally, and all of the foreign dealings were reported as required by law. Not so much with the Trump campaign. He is the one who is deliciously "squirmy." Picking tweet wars is no way to avoid the consequences of attempting to sell your country out.


You are frikin blind.

1. Hillary's "foundation" gets donations for 145 million from parties related to the Russian company involved around the same time she is to vote on the legitimacy of the transaction.
2. Bill gets 500K for a 20 minute speech days before approval.
3. A key Russian involved in the deal is being investigated for money laundering by the FBI at the time of the deal, and yet is given a visa which is never supposed to be approved for a money launderer.
4. The Clinton foundation has received no money from these parties since the deal was approved.
5. The Clinton foundation has had enormous administrative fees - ie. the money was given to Clinton cronies and to fly them around in private planes - not to charity.
6. Once hillary lost - the clinton foundation was shut down - why - because she had no more power to sell obviously!

Now there is new news coming out that the podesta group - who the clintons are very cosy (John Podesta was her campaign manager) placed a high level aide to Hillary in the state department to lobby for Russian interests. This is coming from a former employee of the Podesta group.

If you do not and will not see the obvious - you are in complete denial.
This was pay for play, and the Clintons sold out 20% of our Uranium supply for their personal enrichment, to the determent to the security of every American. This is not a surprise - they did the same thing repetedly when Bill was president - they are criminal scum.

You know I don't even care if it is all technically legal - which I doubt- it damn well should not have been.
We are talking about the key ingredient for nuclear weapons here - and some of it has left the country even though this agreement stated it should not.

Anyone claiming this is a nothingburger is either a complete idiot, or so hopelessly partisan that they need to be locked up in a mental institution.



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




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



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


That person was not part of the campaign and the info she received, openly by the way, was not used by the DNC, let alone the campaign. The campaign or Hillary cannot be held responsible for the actions the individual took on her own.

What Jr and friends did is another story. They were directly tied to the campaign.



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.


How is it a big deal?



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


So? How does that negate the fact that John Podesta was not part of the firm when he worked for Obama and Hillary?

Are you still going down this road of guilt by association and collecting guilt?



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


She would have to, in order for her to have violated some law. Unlike Jr and friends, Bill doesn't appear to have gone to meet Putin under the promise that they would receive dirt on a political opponent as a gift from Russia, which is what Jr did and may be in violation of the law I previously cited.



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


They didn't have to receive anything to potentially be in violation of the law. Only a promise need to be made. Read this:


A foreign national shall not, directly or indirectly, make a contribution or a donation of money or other thing of value, or expressly or impliedly promise to make a contribution or a donation, in connection with any Federal, State, or local election


www.businessinsider.com...

Jr's own email showed he had the intent of cashing in on their "promise" and that itself may be a violation, even though they did not provide that info to them.

Can you show that Bill was promised anything?

Are you beginning to see the differences?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And another goal post change!!

You are going for the record.

Last post it was they had to get something for the campaign for it to be collusion.

When shown trump Jr got nithing, now it was just he had to think he would get something.

So when we have democrats actually getting dirt from russians and ukranians, that doesn't matter because of whatever reason.

Once more, you slide your definitions of what requires an investigation to basically just say investigate trump not Hillary.

Oh and unlike trump Jr who received nitjing, not only can I prove Bill was promised sometjing, I can prove he got it.

500 thousand dollars.

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



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Logic says that Special Counsel Mueller investigating
Tony Podesta has nothing to do with Trump.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said is nothing more than debunked “baloney" and a sign that Republicans are nervous C-SPAN.



Same old Clinton side step.... "It's a Right-Wing Conspiracy"
edit on 25-10-2017 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)

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

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



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Last post it was they had to get something for the campaign for it to be collusion.


Yes, the Clinton campaign would have to get something because there is no evidence to suggest they were promised anything, which could be a violation in and of itself.



When shown trump Jr got nithing, now it was just he had to think he would get something.


He was promised something of "value", which is specifically stated in the law. As far as we know, Clinton not only was not promised anything, they didn't receive anything.

Are you really having a hard time grasping this?



So when we have democrats actually getting dirt from russians and ukranians, that doesn't matter because of whatever reason.


Well, it doesn't matter because it was the action of one individual that took it upon themselves to ask questions about Manafort and it does not appear any of that info made it's way to the campaign.

Can you prove otherwise?



Once more, you slide your definitions of what requires an investigation to basically just say investigate trump not Hillary.


No sliding needed. I'm providing those little nuances I told you about, along with citations of the actual laws, which you have yet to provide yourself, and you are having a rough time comprehending.

That is not my problem.



Oh and unlike trump Jr who received nitjing, not only can I prove Bill was promised sometjing, I can prove he got it.

500 thousand dollars.


For speaking fees.

I think you've gone full derp, dude.

That is beyond ridiculous.

Please read the link I provided and educate yourself on the actual laws involved. Only then will you begin to understand what you are being told. Otherwise, you will continue to post garbage such as this and further prove you have absolutely no clue what the # you are talking about.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The investigation into trump people includes more than trump jr, and started before his meeting was known.

So why are those others being investigated?

What did they get for trump?

Your business insider says foreigners can not give things like money or promses.

Somehow bills money he got, or the Clinton foundation doesn't apply though.

What a joke.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
So the Hillary voters are the REAL deplorables, she has been using that reverse psychology game everytime she speaks lol



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



The investigation into trump people includes more than trump jr, and started before his meeting was known.

So why are those others being investigated?


Correct. That's because others on his team met with people without disclosing it.

Not one individual with Hillary's campaign did that.



What did they get for trump?


You really aren't getting this, are you?



Your business insider says foreigners can not give things like money or promses.

Somehow bills money he got, or the Clinton foundation doesn't apply though.


Nope. You don't get it. Ignorance confirmed.



What a joke.


I wish it was worth laughing about.

It's become clearly obvious that you do not care about facts. You just want to push your narratives a false equivalencies, despite the information you are shown, and somehow equate what Trump's team is facing and project that on to Clinton.

Worst of all, you have the balls to lecture people about being blindly partisan, when you have shown it is you that will lie and forego all information to push your own partisan agenda.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

And now we are back to this.

The clinton foundation received money form russians connected to the uranium one deal and didnt disclose it.

How is that different?

There is no proof anyone but Trump jr. was offered anything, so why investigate them.

Your own article says getting money from or promised favors from foreign agents would be illegal. We know bill got money. But somehow that doesnt matter.

You now move the goal posts again, and say now it has nothing to do with getting something, it is just meeting people.

Ok, intially the dnc person meeting ukrainian officials did not disclose it. Only after she was caught did she.

Bill didnt disclose his meeting with Putin.

Hillarys team lied about paying foreign agents for the dossier for over a year, basically not disclsoing it. There is even a law suit being filed that this is illegal.

The podesta group didnt disclose there meetings with Russian agents.

And so on.

Now you will say "yeah but they didnt get anything" or something like that.

You just keep sliding the goal post around.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



And now we are back to this.


Sadly. It appears you can't comprehend what you are being told.



The clinton foundation received money form russians connected to the uranium one deal and didnt disclose it.


True. Now is there anything linking those undisclosed donations to Hillary, her campaign or the decision...she was not in a position to make on the deal?

No.

Remember...she did not vote on the deal.



There is no proof anyone but Trump jr. was offered anything, so why investigate them.


So you concede he was offered something. That's a step forward and provides a specific difference that does not fit the Hillary narrative you have tried, and failed, to create.

The rest are under investigation because they personally met with foreign agents. Hillary and her staff did not.



Your own article says getting money from or promised favors from foreign agents would be illegal. We know bill got money. But somehow that doesnt matter.


The campaign was neither promised or received that money. It was paid to Bill for his work as a private individual for speaking fees.

A very important difference. Surely you have the ability to differentiate.

Maybe not.



You now move the goal posts again, and say now it has nothing to do with getting something, it is just meeting people.


Again, no goal posts moved. You lack the ability, or desire, to understand the context when it comes to positions within a campaign and US election laws, which is what I linked to you.

Did you even read it? Clinton's campaign neither received or was promised anything of "value" from a foreign entity in regards to the campaign.

That is the difference.



Ok, intially the dnc person meeting ukrainian officials did not disclose it. Only after she was caught did she.


Sure. What does that have to do with the campaign or Hillary?



Bill didnt disclose his meeting with Putin.


It was publicly known. Also, did he have to disclose his actions as a private citizen? He played no official role in the campaign.



Hillarys team lied about paying foreign agents for the dossier for over a year, basically not disclsoing it. There is even a law suit being filed that this is illegal.


Incorrect. They paid a US firm, who in turn retained a foreign investigator to dig up opposition research.



The podesta group didnt disclose there meetings with Russian agents. And so on.


And how is that the fault of Hillary and the campaign?



Now you will say "yeah but they didnt get anything" or something like that.

You just keep sliding the goal post around.


Honestly, I don't think you even know what game is being played, let alone if goalposts are involved.

You cannot be this clueless, unless you are being intentionally obtuse for partisan reasons.

I give you credit though. I haven't laughed a good belly laugh for a long time until you posted about Bill's speaking fees.

That was not only an epic fail, but hilarious as #!


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



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Everyone sees your double standards.

I have said my piece, I have proven using your own words for what would be required for an investigation, and how Hillarys team met that criteria, and you havs suirmed over and over to move the goal posts.

You are so partisan that you cant even see how ridiculous this is.

You are actually arguing things like Bill Clinto could meet with foreign agents because he want connected to hillarys campaign.

You said that only crazy conspiracy people would want an investigation into this.

Well we are starting to see several investigations into this come up, so guess you were wrong again.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Everyone sees your double standards.


Appeal to the majority. A logical fallacy.

That means you have no logical, fact-based argument.



I have said my piece, I have proven using your own words for what would be required for an investigation, and how Hillarys team met that criteria, and you havs suirmed over and over to move the goal posts.


The most important thing you have proven is you do not understand the importance of context.



You are so partisan that you cant even see how ridiculous this is.


Of course it's ridiculous. That is why we are debating it.

You perpetuate conspiracies based on a lack of understanding of context and a desire to illogically equate this situation to that of Trump.

Now that is not only ridiculous, but also laughably partisan.



You are actually arguing things like Bill Clinto could meet with foreign agents because he want connected to hillarys campaign.


And you are arguing that his speaking fees are proof that the campaign received money from foreign agents?





You said that only crazy conspiracy people would want an investigation into this.


Investigate it based on the crap you have provided?

Hell ya. I stand by that.

We're in all-out bat# territory right now.



Well we are starting to see several investigations into this come up, so guess you were wrong again.


No. It indicates that the bat# may be mainstream Right Wing at this point.

Grassley and friends are known for being a bit off.

How'd Benghazi go for you nutters?
edit on 25-10-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: proximo


1. Hillary's "foundation" gets donations for 145 million from parties related to the Russian company involved around the same time she is to vote on the legitimacy of the transaction.


The Clinton Foundation receives money from many sources. It is true that Russian businessmen consider bribery and emoluments to be standard business practice. They may have contributed to the foundation assuming that it would give them access to the Clintons, just as their financial transactions with Donald Trump can be assumed to be providing them with leverage with him. Unlike the Trump "Foundation," the Clinton Foundation is not a tax dodge they use to solicit money to buy portraits of themselves to hang in country clubs they own. It engages in humanitarian works around the globe:

www.clintonfoundation.org...

Hillary Clinton recused herself from the Foundation while Secretary of State. That reminds me... has Trump put all his assets into a blind trust yet? Or does he make money every time the Saudis stay at one of his hotels?


2. Bill gets 500K for a 20 minute speech days before approval.


Ex-presidents make lots of money making speeches. Are you saying that the five agencies that had to sign off on the deal all changed their minds because an ex-president gave a speech days before? Or are you implying that Hillary Clinton alone was resisting signing off on the deal and it took a last minute indirect bribe to bring her on board?


3. A key Russian involved in the deal is being investigated for money laundering by the FBI at the time of the deal, and yet is given a visa which is never supposed to be approved for a money launderer.


If he was under investigation, it means he was neither charged nor convicted, hence, there was no reason to deny him a visa. I am looking forward to this aspect of the reopened investigation: it will probably lead to Trump real estate being involved in Russian money laundering.


4. The Clinton foundation has received no money from these parties since the deal was approved.


Which suggests that they did not get fair value for their intended bribe.


5. The Clinton foundation has had enormous administrative fees - ie. the money was given to Clinton cronies and to fly them around in private planes - not to charity.


Prove it. If only 1% of the Clinton Foundation funds went to charitable spending, it is still light years ahead of the so called "Trump Foundation."


6. Once hillary lost - the clinton foundation was shut down - why - because she had no more power to sell obviously!


The Clinton Foundation is still going strong. Just click on the link above. You may be confusing it with her campaign fund. It would be unethical to use campaign funds for paying legal cees incurred by an investigation... as you know who is doing.



Now there is new news coming out that the podesta group - who the clintons are very cosy (John Podesta was her campaign manager) placed a high level aide to Hillary in the state department to lobby for Russian interests. This is coming from a former employee of the Podesta group.


There is nothing illegal or unethical about lobbying for Russian interests; in fact, the stated policy of the Obama administration at the time was to heal relations with Russia. Of course, if the Podesta Group had the Russian government as a client they would need to formally register that fact. Now, if they actually lied and/or tried to cover that relationship up, like Messrs Manafort and Flynn, that would be illegal, of course.


If you do not and will not see the obvious - you are in complete denial.


My sentiments exactly.


This was pay for play, and the Clintons sold out 20% of our Uranium supply for their personal enrichment, to the determent to the security of every American.


If an investigation can turn up actual evidence of a quid pro quo, Hillary Clinton should be punished to the full extent of the law. Just like Manafort, Flynn, and Trump Jr.



You know I don't even care if it is all technically legal - which I doubt- it damn well should not have been.


Exactly... you do not care about legality at all. You hate that woman so much you would see her hanged on false charges. On the other hand, the Trump campaign was filled with people who sold their country out, and you continue to defend the illegitimate president.


We are talking about the key ingredient for nuclear weapons here - and some of it has left the country even though this agreement stated it should not.


The only part of your statement that is true is that uranium is a key ingredient for nuclear weapons. Thing is, Russia has three times the uranium reserves that the United States has:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So they don't really need our uranium to make bombs. Most of the mines the Russians acquired were actually in Canada, which has a thriving uranium mining industry. The deal looks suspiciously like a good business investment. As for the uranium leaving the country, I think you are confusing this deal with an FBI sting that was made public at the time.
edit on 26-10-2017 by DJW001 because: Edit too correct autocorrect. --DJW001



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

No reason to respond to this thread by "What about Trump!" Move on the election is over. Hillary is in the cross hairs for multiple crimes, not Trump.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo


The FBI Informant whose gag-order was lifted this morning by the DOJ, at the request of President Trump, will be meeting with one of the 3 Congressional investigative committees soon.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: proximo


The FBI Informant whose gag-order was lifted this morning by the DOJ, at the request of President Trump, will be meeting with one of the 3 Congressional investigative committees soon.


What makes you think he is going to say something you like? Or has he already violated the GAF order, in which case, why should we trust what he says?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: thepixelpusher
a reply to: DJW001

No reason to respond to this thread by "What about Trump!" Move on the election is over. Hillary is in the cross hairs for multiple crimes, not Trump.

Where have you been? There are two congressional committees and an Independent Counsel investigating Trump's election related crimes. His other crimes are being investigated in the states they were committed in.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: proximo


The FBI Informant whose gag-order was lifted this morning by the DOJ, at the request of President Trump, will be meeting with one of the 3 Congressional investigative committees soon.


What makes you think he is going to say something you like? Or has he already violated the GAF order, in which case, why should we trust what he says?


It is also possible that the FBI pulled the gag order so that the informant could provide some information that puts the squash on these conspiracy theories.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

That's cute. You sound so hopeful that this isn't politically or deep state motivated. Trump will run 8 years. No impeachment or anything. Prepare for Dems losing midterms and the 2020 election.



new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join