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.

 

Whistleblower: Flynn told colleague Russia sanctions would be 'ripped up'

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Arnie123

Please... Even if Trump is holding a smoking gun his supporters will come up with all the standard excuses. It doesn't matter what the news is, they already have their mind made up that he is some sort of genius that can do no wrong.

Pitiful actually.


This entire story has zero to do with Trump, and everything to do with Flynn.


That is a strange perspective.

Flynn would not have been in a position to allegedly commit this crime if not for him being President Trump's chosen Chief national Security Advisor.

Nor was Flynn is a position to deliver on his promise to lift Russian Sanctions without the President's agreement.

Flynn's relationship with and status with Trump is precisely what enabled the crime. Otherwise none of it would be possible.




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: mzinga
a reply to: Arnie123

Please... Even if Trump is holding a smoking gun his supporters will come up with all the standard excuses. It doesn't matter what the news is, they already have their mind made up that he is some sort of genius that can do no wrong.

Pitiful actually.


This entire story has zero to do with Trump, and everything to do with Flynn.


That is a strange perspective.

Flynn would not have been in a position to allegedly commit this crime if not for him being President Trump's chosen Chief national Security Advisor.

Nor was Flynn is a position to deliver on his promise to lift Russian Sanctions without the President's agreement.

Flynn's relationship with and status with Trump is precisely what enabled the crime. Otherwise none of it would be possible.



Nah... The timing doesn't correlate. According to the unknown whistler blower this was already well in place well before Flynn was chosen as an advisor. The business planning, to partner with Russia would have already surfaced if Trump was involved. You also have to consider just how big the risk would be setting a plan like this in motion, with someone who is/was highly unlikely to win. If you were Russia, or a Russian nuclear energy supplier you'd be doing your business planning with the person or group who is mostly likely to win the Presidency and thus could remove any sanctions that might be in place already.

The key to understanding who was involved, is to look at where Russia was planning to secure this nuclear fuel from. Had there been any major uranium procurements in the last few years leading upto 2016 ? Were there any candidates that already had done business with Russian businesses ? Perhaps person or persons that had a good standing or even recently "reset" relations with the former Soviet Union ?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: SlapMonkey


See, now the funny thing is, this is a quote from a post you had made earlier. With just a couple changed words, it proves my point. When people say things like this, it's ok. When faced with your own accusations, you get a little triggered. So, before you begin calling people "unintelligent" or question someone's credibility, perhaps a mirror would be valuable.

What are you even talking about? Your following comments support my claim that this has nothing to do with Trump--and in the interest of fairness, I'm talking about in regards to the OPs link and the point of this thread.

I'm not triggered, I just have a very low tolerance for people trying to be clever but, in the process, providing nothing of substance. I guess you can call that triggered, if you want, but every time I encounter someone lumping me in the category of "die-hard Trump fan," I just have to laugh at the absurdity and call them out. Again, if that's "get[ting] a little triggered," I guess...so be it?


There is definitely something up with the Trump team and the questionable actions they have taken. Although I don't know the full facts, I am almost certain there'll be some high level repercussions. No idea how high level, we'll just have to wait and see on that.

Agreed.

But we can claim that it involves Trump in criminal activity from what we're all privy to at the moment.


If this turn out without anyone being convicted of some shady acts, then I'll gladly eat my hat.

"Some people" and "shady acts" are a far cry from those claiming that this is going to bring Trump down under treasonous charges, which is a common theme in threads like this, and claims that I cannot let slide without giving an appropriate response to.

If the evidence shows anyone, including Trump, doing illegal things, then indictment needs to be pursued. That's the funny thing about me--I want justice, not ideological wins and losses.



And for those that make that claim that "nothing has been found by now - it should be closed". Keep in mind, it took 6 years for Starr to impeach Clinton. It's not a fast moving process. I, myself, prefer thoroughness to expediency.

Sure, but since traveling to the future and ascertaining the outcome of all of this six years from now, hypothetical possibilities don't negate the reality that, as far as Trump goes, there is not evidence of anything.

Yet.

I would ask that, in the interest of thoroughness and not expediency, that you refrain from generalizing me before even knowing anything about my stance on the matter(s) at hand.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh, so you want to employ the guilty-by-association tactic that holds zero relevancy in a court of law concerning illegalities. I see.

This is what we call a logical fallacy in thinking.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

you would have a point if Flynn was in power and sworn in when he said that. we dont prosecute people for pre crimes. only thing he did was fraud russians with a promise that was never followed.

and look at muellers record. a example of his sleaziness put 4 men in jail a year that was later dismissed after they had evidence he withheld from the defense. yeah real saint there.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: soberbacchus

Oh, so you want to employ the guilty-by-association tactic that holds zero relevancy in a court of law concerning illegalities. I see.



The plot itself would be solely dependent on the President lifting sanctions.
Flynn did not have that authority.
This is a relative of racketeering or conspiracy not association.




This is what we call a logical fallacy in thinking.



That is what I would call deliberate self-cognitive abuse.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: soberbacchus

you would have a point if Flynn was in power and sworn in when he said that.


Trump was. Literally just seconds before Flynn texted that.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

I agree, just because Flynn couldnt do the deal of lifting sanctions himself doesnt mean he couldnt have acted imporperly.

If he stood to gain money, then it would be worth looking into, right?

I mean, especially if the people accused of giving him money were known to be shady or share goals with shady people.

...



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

You're confused or stuck on a moot point.

My initial post, was yours with only a few changed words. Re-read what you wrote.

It was just to prove that the same argument goes both ways and we shouldn't be jumping to conclusions. I, in no way, accused you of anything anymore than you accused me in your initial writing.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: soberbacchus

I agree, just because Flynn couldnt do the deal of lifting sanctions himself doesnt mean he couldnt have acted imporperly.

If he stood to gain money, then it would be worth looking into, right?

I mean, especially if the people accused of giving him money were known to be shady or share goals with shady people.

...


According to the source "a lot of people would get very wealthy"...or something similar.
Also..The company that had been working on the deal had been working on it for 5+ years, but it was scuttled when the US placed sanctions on certain Russian Oligarchs they said were involved in organized crime.

So who would get "very Wealthy" in this scenario?

Those Oligarchs. The US company that was organizing the deal to build Nuclear Facilities in the Middle East, the Russian Oligarchs that would finance it and most importantly those responsible for lifting US Sanctions that would allow the Russian Oligarchs to finance it.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

no deal was signed. its like a movie deal. no sig no deal. dont mean nothing till you sign it on the dotted line. no crime wa done due to the sanctions still exist.



posted on Dec, 9 2017 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus


Flynn, while involved in the Trump transition, worked with companies including ACU Strategic Partners to make a deal with Russia to build nuclear reactors in the Middle East




As President Donald Trump delivered his inaugural address, incoming-national security adviser Michael Flynn texted his former business colleague about a plan to join Russia and build nuclear reactors in the Middle East:

The project was "good to go," he told them, according to a summary of a whistleblower's account provided by a lawmaker.




The business colleague who texted with Flynn later recounted that he also suggested sanctions against Russia would be "ripped up" as one of the administration's first acts, according to the whistleblower.




Flynn had texted Copson with the same message -- that the nuclear reaction project was "good to go" -- from his place on the dais outside the Capitol 10 minutes into Trump's inaugural address, the whistleblower told Cummings. Flynn also texted Copson to tell his business colleagues to "let them know to put things in place," Cummings wrote.




Copson then told the whistleblower that Flynn "has been putting everything in place for us" and that the project would "make a lot of very wealthy people."


LINK

This is breaking across multiple sources.
If you don't like the source above, pick another.

The Whistleblower's interview has been handed over to Trey Gowdy for follow-up.

The plan was to make billions by selling US Nuclear Policy and Foreign Policy (Russian Sanctions).

Flynn as the incoming Chief National Security Advisor to the President had partnered with ACU Strategic Partners who were putting together a deal for Russia to build Nuclear Reactors in the Middle East.

With Trump as President, Russian Sanctions about to be "torn up", Flynn and (who else) were on track to as he put it "make a lot of very wealthy people."

This entire administration is in Russia's pocket.

Drain the Swamp my ass. The minute Trump took the oath, his Chief National Security Advisor was so giddy about cashing in on repealing Russian sanctions he couldn't wait until he left the stage to text his partners.


Karen Hudes said in recent weeks that Trump was a bankers man. Considering I read sometime before the election last year that Trump counts some bankers as personal friends, and given the above, what Hudes says fits.

Now that adds up to a truth to me.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join