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.

 

Smoking Gun: The Trump Victory Insurance Policy - Muh Russia?

page: 8
51
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

oh and this....
but wait, your not a hillary supporter either,just like your pal right?

Lol. I'm a registered Republican. 

Amazing. Every single word you said was incorrect. 

not so much it seems




posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

I did not say "at most," did I? Bias does not matter, only facts. Trump supporters are afraid of the facts, so they are calling "foul!"


Here is what you did say:




It is not the FBI that bad mouthed Trump, it was an individual or two who happened to be employed by the FBI

Parse it however you like.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

But the texts are not transcripts of any meeting nor does it even indicate that any comments about trump were made at any meetings.
They do not indicate that these meetings were anything other than legitimate FBI business.

It would appear from the texts that certain people at the FBI thought that their legitimate business had something to do with whether Trump could possibly pull out a win... and if he did, what they could do about it afterwards.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump Junior's emails prove collusion. We know Manafort was a Russian agent. If you cannot see WikiLeaks is a major outlet of Russian anti-American propaganda you are blind. When all the truth comes out, the Russian shills and fellow travellers here will finally be exposed for the transparent knuckle draggers they are.


If by speaking with a foreign national you mean collusion, then sure, but that is not what the charge is. I know it might be comforting to water down the accusations you and others have made, now that it looks a hopeless cause, but that will not offer you any comfort when the investigation winds down with no evidence of the charge.

As for Wikileaks - prove your charge.


I was simply pointing out that the Trump supporters who are denying that there was collusion are wilfully ignorant. The known collusion and money laundering are the tip of the iceberg.

ETA: As for WikiLeaks, provide a single example of a document embarrassing to Russia.


If it helps you handle being wrong when you got yourself so entrenched, then go ahead and claim anything you want as 'known'. It won't change the reality that, to date, there is not a single thing turned up on Trump that shows he colluded with Russia to swing an election.

As for wikileaks - that is not proof. Which countries in the world have Wikileaks not embarrassed? Are they agents of all of those countries?? When making a claim you should at least have some inkling of proof, otherwise, you're just putting out hot air. If you do get some proof that wikileaks are working for Russia please do start a thread as it would be very interesting. Till then, I'll pass on your speculation.
edit on 17/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


If it helps you handle being wrong when you got yourself so entrenched, then go ahead and claim anything you want as 'known'. It won't change the reality that, to date, there is not a single thing turned up on Trump that shows he colluded with Russia to swing an election.


The only way you seem to be able to defend Trump is to use strawmen. Did I say "Trump colluded?" I said "there was collusion" on the part of those around him. If believing that Trump is such a brainless idiot that he didn't notice that Manafort was a Russian agent and that his son was interested in getting material obtained through Russian espionage makes you feel better about your mistaken trust in him, so be it.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

But the texts are not transcripts of any meeting nor does it even indicate that any comments about trump were made at any meetings.
They do not indicate that these meetings were anything other than legitimate FBI business.

It would appear from the texts that certain people at the FBI thought that their legitimate business had something to do with whether Trump could possibly pull out a win... and if he did, what they could do about it afterwards.


Please post that text so that we can see why you believe that.



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

But the texts are not transcripts of any meeting nor does it even indicate that any comments about trump were made at any meetings.
They do not indicate that these meetings were anything other than legitimate FBI business.

It would appear from the texts that certain people at the FBI thought that their legitimate business had something to do with whether Trump could possibly pull out a win... and if he did, what they could do about it afterwards.


Please post that text so that we can see why you believe that.

It is in the OP.

"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " 

They were having meetings about this in an FBI office.

Where an FBI agent specializing in counterintelligence is saying that they can't take the risk of a candidate being chosen by the American people in a fair election.... if that candidate is Donald Trump.

Imagine if an FBI agent in the George W Bush administration had sent texts that 'we can't take the risk of Barack Obama winning the election.
edit on b000000312017-12-17T16:04:02-06:0004America/ChicagoSun, 17 Dec 2017 16:04:02 -0600400000017 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

There is a difference between having meetings about something, and just making conversation. It sounds like they all agreed that a Trump victory was unlikely. The "insurance policy" comment was made informally after the early innocent conversation. Many private citizens were saying the same sorts of things. Just because someone has political opi ions does not mean they cannot also act professionally.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is doing everything he can to discredit America's chief counterintelligence agency. Who most benefits from that? (Hint: hostile foreign powers.)



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: butcherguy

There is a difference between having meetings about something, and just making conversation. It sounds like they all agreed that a Trump victory was unlikely. The "insurance policy" comment was made informally after the early innocent conversation. Many private citizens were saying the same sorts of things. Just because someone has political opi ions does not mean they cannot also act professionally.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is doing everything he can to discredit America's chief counterintelligence agency. Who most benefits from that? (Hint: hostile foreign powers.)




Oh? That tweet was just a summary.

What was the actual conversation in McCabe's office?

How deep into the "insurance policy" did it go between them?

It's sounding more like a coup conspiracy every day.

Maybe they brought up JFK. Who knows?





posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

You are the one who needs to find out what they actually said in the "secret meeting" if you want to build a case. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Trump Junior knowingly met with Russian agents to obtain illegally gathered information. Facts trump speculation!



posted on Dec, 18 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: burgerbuddy

You are the one who needs to find out what they actually said in the "secret meeting" if you want to build a case. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Trump Junior knowingly met with Russian agents to obtain illegally gathered information. Facts trump speculation!



He didn't pay for anything or get any info.

Someone bought the last hillary dossier.

But you knew all that.

Simpson, the head of GPS met with the agent before and after the Jr. meeting.

Ohr's wife Nellie, work for Fusion GPS. Hillary's State Dept gave the Russian agent a special visa to get in the US!

Steele is a foreign agent, too.

$12 mil for a fake story is a lot of bucks, sounds like money laundering. I bet Podesta was behind all of this too since he was on a russian bank payroll.

Hell, Bill has all kinds of contacts with hot Russian spies. Since he was a such a good customer, they did him a solid.
Didn't send their best hottie. Altho he did like them plump.

As to the secret meeting, someone needs to find out what was said, by any means necessary. BAMN!









posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 03:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: burgerbuddy

You are the one who needs to find out what they actually said in the "secret meeting" if you want to build a case. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Trump Junior knowingly met with Russian agents to obtain illegally gathered information. Facts trump speculation!


Nope - he knowingly met with people who wanted to give him dirt on Clinton. Not a crime or even any issue.

Oh, and ,no, it's you who needs to prove something nefarious happened in the meeting. The onus is on the accuser, as always. Not sure what kind of backward banana republic you want to live in.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


If it helps you handle being wrong when you got yourself so entrenched, then go ahead and claim anything you want as 'known'. It won't change the reality that, to date, there is not a single thing turned up on Trump that shows he colluded with Russia to swing an election.


The only way you seem to be able to defend Trump is to use strawmen. Did I say "Trump colluded?" I said "there was collusion" on the part of those around him. If believing that Trump is such a brainless idiot that he didn't notice that Manafort was a Russian agent and that his son was interested in getting material obtained through Russian espionage makes you feel better about your mistaken trust in him, so be it.


Actually - given the accusation is that Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election - I am merely waiting for that evidence to be shown. No amount of obfuscation from the actual claim you have made for over a year is going to remove the clear onus on accusers like yourself to prove it. So far you have nada.
edit on 19/12/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: burgerbuddy

You are the one who needs to find out what they actually said in the "secret meeting" if you want to build a case. Meanwhile, we know for a fact that Trump Junior knowingly met with Russian agents to obtain illegally gathered information. Facts trump speculation!


No he didnt...



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


If it helps you handle being wrong when you got yourself so entrenched, then go ahead and claim anything you want as 'known'. It won't change the reality that, to date, there is not a single thing turned up on Trump that shows he colluded with Russia to swing an election.


The only way you seem to be able to defend Trump is to use strawmen. Did I say "Trump colluded?" I said "there was collusion" on the part of those around him. If believing that Trump is such a brainless idiot that he didn't notice that Manafort was a Russian agent and that his son was interested in getting material obtained through Russian espionage makes you feel better about your mistaken trust in him, so be it.


Actually - given the accusation is that Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election - I am merely waiting for that evidence to be shown. No amount of obfuscation from the actual claim you have made for over a year is going to remove the clear onus on accusers like yourself to prove it. So far you have nada.


That is because the only collusion thus far was with Democrats.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: UKTruth


If it helps you handle being wrong when you got yourself so entrenched, then go ahead and claim anything you want as 'known'. It won't change the reality that, to date, there is not a single thing turned up on Trump that shows he colluded with Russia to swing an election.


The only way you seem to be able to defend Trump is to use strawmen. Did I say "Trump colluded?" I said "there was collusion" on the part of those around him. If believing that Trump is such a brainless idiot that he didn't notice that Manafort was a Russian agent and that his son was interested in getting material obtained through Russian espionage makes you feel better about your mistaken trust in him, so be it.


Actually - given the accusation is that Trump and/or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the election - I am merely waiting for that evidence to be shown. No amount of obfuscation from the actual claim you have made for over a year is going to remove the clear onus on accusers like yourself to prove it. So far you have nada.


That is because the only collusion thus far was with Democrats.

What rock have you been hiding under?

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:36 AM, Rob Goldstone wrote:

Good morning

Emin just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting.

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump
- helped along by Aras and Emin.

What do you think is the best way to handle this information and would you be able to speak to Emin about it directly?

I can also send this info to your father via Rhona, but it is ultra sensitive so wanted to send to you first.

Best

Rob Goldstone

On Jun 3, 2016, at 10:53, Donald Trump Jr. wrote:

Thanks Rob I appreciate that. I am on the road at the moment but perhaps I just speak to Emin first. Seems we have some time and if it's what you say I love it especially later in the summer. Could we do a call first thing next week when I am back?

Best,

Don

Donny Jr.'s emails. [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

Do I need to explain that campaign staff are supposed to report their contacts with foreign agents?
edit on 19-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Rob Goldstone is a Foreign Agent?




posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil


Rob Goldstone is a Foreign Agent?


If he is acting as an intermediary for the Russian government, of course he is.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: pavil


Rob Goldstone is a Foreign Agent?

If he is acting as an intermediary for the Russian government, of course he is.


Good luck with that.



posted on Dec, 19 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

A rock that uses valid and real information instead of the rantings of a person who doesnt seem to comprehend the fact Russia has no Crown Prosecutor since they arent a monarchy anymore.


What the Heck Is a Russian 'Crown Prosecutor'? Technically, there’s no such position. But the man who holds the office’s nearest equivalent in Russia is a Putin loyalist of long standing.



In emails he released on Tuesday by Donald Trump Jr., the president’s eldest son and former campaign surrogate, Rob Goldstone, a former British tabloid journalist, told Trump Jr. that “the Crown prosecutor of Russia met with … Aras [Agalarov] this morning and in their meeting offered to provide some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.” Which raises the question, who is “the Crown prosecutor of Russia”?

Goldstone seems to have garbled things a bit; in the United Kingdom a Crown prosecutor is one that works for the Crown, i.e., a federal prosecutor. There’s no such position in Russia technically, but the analogue would be the top federal prosecutor of Russia, and that is Yury Chaika, the prosecutor-general of the Russian Federation. (It’s also possible Goldstone meant to refer to Alexander Bastrykin, the head of the feared Investigative Committee and Vladimir Putin’s law school classmate. But Chaika is the most likely candidate given that he’s close to Agalarov and is currently a prosecutor.) Goldstone was likely translating a foreign title into its local equivalent. Translated into American titles, Chaika could be referred to as Russia’s attorney general.


and again there is no evidence of the fake left crime of collusion with TRump / Trump team.

Democrats on the other hand have been caught.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join