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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Giustra sold his U1 shares three years before the merger with Rosatom and donations such as they were came 15 months before Clinton became Sec. State.
Opinions about motivations are not facts. neither are spurious claims about Clinton Foundation reporting.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: soberbacchus
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: soberbacchus
??
I do not speak this language.
Question Marks mean "Question" here in the states.
You claimed:
"Mueller's team broke the law by disclosing grand jury material in a leak. "
Where? (Link) Who? (Link) When? (Link?)
Would you mind either supporting the fact or explaining the lie?
Oh you must have not been around this weekend.
It was leaked Friday that their would be an indictment Monday.
Leaking info on a grand jury indictment from an ongoing investigation is a crime.
So someone in the investigation committed a crime.
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Giustra sold his U1 shares three years before the merger with Rosatom and donations such as they were came 15 months before Clinton became Sec. State.
Opinions about motivations are not facts. neither are spurious claims about Clinton Foundation reporting.
So you admit Hillary took $4 million from people involved in the uranium one deal?
What does this prove for you again?
originally posted by: mightmight
Do i get this right ... US Democrats were hoping to finally turn up some evidence for collusion and instead Mueller guy handed down an indictment for tax Evasion... from before Trump was even a candiate... and with many juciy links to democrate interest groups?
Great show, keep it up.
Make no mistake, disclosing grand jury material is a violation of the law. Somebody violated their oath of secrecy,” Gowdy, a South Carolina lawmaker and former federal prosecutor, also told Fox News on Sunday.
The key rule governing grand jury secrecy is Rule 6(e).
It first says:
no obligation of secrecy may be imposed on any person except in accordance with Rule 6(e)(2)(B).
Rule 6(e)(2)(B) reads:
[T]he following persons must not disclose a matter occurring before the grand jury:
(i) a grand juror;
(ii) an interpreter;
(iii) a court reporter;
(iv) an operator of a recording device;
(v) a person who transcribes recorded testimony;
(vi) an attorney for the government; or
(vii) a person to whom disclosure is made under Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii). [Note: these sections cover disclosure made to certain government officials.]
So, the prosecutor, the jurors and the court reporter may not disclose what happens in a grand jury.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Giustra sold his U1 shares three years before the merger with Rosatom and donations such as they were came 15 months before Clinton became Sec. State.
Opinions about motivations are not facts. neither are spurious claims about Clinton Foundation reporting.
So you admit Hillary took $4 million from people involved in the uranium one deal?
What does this prove for you again?
Exactly. What does it prove if the CF took the money?
Hillary was not on the board and the SD rep that was on the board specifically stated that she had no involvement.
Not to mention that there were many others that had to approve the deal, including the rest of the board, US Nuclear regulatory agencies and some state/local agencies.
Saying the contributions were a bribe to pass the deal make no sense whatsoever.
originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: Grambler
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Giustra sold his U1 shares three years before the merger with Rosatom and donations such as they were came 15 months before Clinton became Sec. State.
Opinions about motivations are not facts. neither are spurious claims about Clinton Foundation reporting.
So you admit Hillary took $4 million from people involved in the uranium one deal?
What does this prove for you again?
Exactly. What does it prove if the CF took the money?
Hillary was not on the board and the SD rep that was on the board specifically stated that she had no involvement.
Not to mention that there were many others that had to approve the deal, including the rest of the board, US Nuclear regulatory agencies and some state/local agencies.
Saying the contributions were a bribe to pass the deal make no sense whatsoever.
She had to sign the paper so how was she not involved?
So now we are finally, FINALLY off of someohow claiming that because a lot of money went to her earlier, that somehow proved the Millions she got couldnt be a bribe.
The rest of what you are claiming has been adressed over and obver; the CFIUS people were all Obama admins, many of the had connections to the clinton foundation, its absurd to think she wouldnt influence her assistant and his word isnt proof of anything, the assistant was revealed in wikileaks emails to tell podesta he would like to help hillary, a few weeks later after he publicly claims hillary had no input on this, and the fact that other people had input in no way proves a bribe wasnt offered.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy
She had to sign the paper so how was she not involved?
The approval of the deal came without her involvement.
Like Grambler said, 7 of the 9 appointees were CF involved.
You are saying that they didn't need her input?
So why did the CF get the money from Uranium 1
and the russian bank that was involved giving 500k for the Bill speech?
As far as her not knowing, having worked in the Defense Department, I can tell you that anything that is delegated down for underlings to handle, the top official (Clinton) who is ultimately responsible for it still knows about it and is briefed on it when it's initially brought up and then is briefed on the progress of it on a regular basis, probably at a weekly staff meeting. And yes, I know the Defense Department isn't the State Department, but all the big government agencies run like this. Clinton would have had to have known about this well before it was finalized, even if it was handled at a lower level. That's just the nature of how these agencies run.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: face23785
As far as her not knowing, having worked in the Defense Department, I can tell you that anything that is delegated down for underlings to handle, the top official (Clinton) who is ultimately responsible for it still knows about it and is briefed on it when it's initially brought up and then is briefed on the progress of it on a regular basis, probably at a weekly staff meeting. And yes, I know the Defense Department isn't the State Department, but all the big government agencies run like this. Clinton would have had to have known about this well before it was finalized, even if it was handled at a lower level. That's just the nature of how these agencies run.
Sure, but that does not mean she was pushing people to vote a certain way, as is being posited.
That is why we need a lot more evidence than just a few internet conspiracy buffs saying "well, it could of happened".
originally posted by: Arnie123
Whelp, all the liberal moaning and screeching, this is the result, the best, that has come of this mueller investigation?
lmfao, um okay.
How's that popcorn? stale?