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.

 

Manafort Charged by FBI

page: 31
61
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

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?




posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 05:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit


Food for thought;

If the FBI knew that Manafort was a Ukrainian money launderer in 2014... why didn't they tell Trump?


Off the top of my head, I would imagine that would be an excellent way to get sued.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Why it proves that it doesn't take 140 million dollars to buy Hillary.... just 4 million.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

I assure you that the buy in is higher....I'll say closer to $30 million for the special treatment.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You are right. It was well before she was Secretary of state. What was she doing during that time? Oh yeah, about to run for president...



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
The best part of all of this is that now we get to hear "Papadopoulus" 30x a day instead of... -cringe- "dossier". Ugh. I was so sick of that word.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

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.


No. Sealed Indictments were issued. Arrests follow.
They were sealed and who was indicted was not revealed.
The fact that indictments had been issued is not secret information or information that Special Counsel Mueller or his time are required to keep secret. Sometimes they even give public statements explaining the indictments.

When they "seal" them until the subject is notified or arrested is when they are worried about someone fleeing the country or other stuff.

What makes you think that the very act of issuing an indictment falls under Grand Jury secrecy?

Never has been.

Indictments are public by nature, unless all parties decide not to talk about it, like the other Trump advisor who pled guilty and cooperated.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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.





Yup and obama's OFA gave $900k to Fusion GPS to make the dossier, too.





posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus


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.


www.foxnews.com...


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.

grandjurytarget.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

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?

9 cabinet level appointees signed the deal.

Obama is just as guilty if not more since he could of told them to sell the stuff or get fired.

Why would the russians give them money anyway?





posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   

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.


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.

Progress!

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.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
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.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



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.


That was never an argument I've made.

What you had said is that she recieved $140 million plus as a bribe, and that assertion does not make much sense once you realize the vast majority of that money came to the foundation before she was in office or before the deal was pushed.



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.


Yes, I know all about your weird conspiracies that cling to the smallest bit of circumstantial evidence and make it out to be some nefarious plot.

What you posted is nothing more than conjecture and lacks, how do you say, real evidence.

Again, you have nothing.

Let me know when you come up with something more than a handful of crap.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   

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?

There is no way no one can't see the money trail.




posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy



Like Grambler said, 7 of the 9 appointees were CF involved.


Were they bribed or coerced?



You are saying that they didn't need her input?


Why would they?

Can you prove they were approached by Clinton on this deal?



So why did the CF get the money from Uranium 1


I've never seen any claim that U1 directly gave her money. Did I miss something?



and the russian bank that was involved giving 500k for the Bill speech?


They liked Bill's speech? I don't know.

The fact they donated to the CF means nothing in and of itself.

You have to have more evidence than conjecture.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

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.

Edit: Just to clarify, something that was handled way down the chain wouldn't be briefed to top officials, but something this big would be. People directly under Clinton were working on it, anything like that gets briefed to the boss. It's standard procedure.
edit on 30 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
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".



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   

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".


This is what I have been saying for days. Thats why there needs to be an investigation.

You were against that, because I was just a right wing nut.



posted on Oct, 30 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   

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?


This is hardly the end of the Mueller investigation, it is just the beginning. It only makes sense to start with the smaller stuff and make way to the main event.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join