It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Radioactive Conflicts of Interest - Not just a hole, but a whole warren

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:19 AM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I note that the shills are having a difficult time coming up with any kind of counter narrative to what is being presented here!?

Threads like these are precisely why I continue to come to this site, there are so many amazing thread creators and J&C your work is always presented straight forward and to the point.

Thank you for all of you do!

2018 has started out strong and I have a feeling that we are just getting started!!

+++ tic tock!

edit on America/ChicagoMondayAmerica/Chicago01America/Chicago131amMonday8 by elementalgrove because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:44 AM
Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:52 AM

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: intrptr

send jeff sessions a link to this thread?

The gubment knows its corrupt. All this detective work analyzing another turd on the carpet in Washington? They chuckle to themselves as they walk around it.

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:53 AM

originally posted by: rockdisjoint2
Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

Sure, there are multiple scenarios in which potential crimes regarding the Uranium One merger could come to light. All those scenarios were prevented from coming to light by certain gatekeepers such as McCabe, Chuang and a few others.

This threads has special focus on Chuang and his many conflicts of interest.

Hope this helps.
edit on 15-1-2018 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:54 AM

originally posted by: rockdisjoint2
Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

There is no simple explanation because its a web of lies, designed to confuse the average person.

Like shadow play on Plato's Cave Wall.

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 09:30 AM
a reply to: rockdisjoint2

There are factors we don't know so coming to a conclusion at this point is hard ...But there is smoke and where there is smoke there should be a fire ...Time to cut the wall boards and look inside

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:00 AM
This is probably one of the most important threads I've seen on ATS in a long time.

GREAT JOB putting it all together and laying it out for us so succinctly, J&C.
This story will definitely continue to reach critical mass...and deserves to be #1 on ATS.


posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:12 AM

originally posted by: rockdisjoint2
Can someone explain this to me like I'm 5?

The deck is stacked in favor of a certain group of people. From the investigators to the prosecutors, to the judiciary...always the same people handling anything related to specific people, with no results ever coming.

Its been bad enough that many in the FBI resigned in protest of the last big hullabaloo: Comey letting Clinton off with a soft peddled statement of her crimes.

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:24 AM
a reply to: elementalgrove
I feel that in order to get to the truth, counter perspectives are needed.

So I will try to play devils advocate and give some response to this thread from the other side.

Perhaps the same 3 or 4 people were in all of these cases because they are the most qualified, and the FBI and others felt that seeing as how they were already familiar with the case, it made more sense to have them handle all of the cases.

Perhaps the reason that they didnt want this info getting public is they knew that there was no corruption from US sources (like Hillary etc.) but they wanted to keep things under the radar so as to not tip off more bad russians they are going after.

It should also be pointed out that this alone, having 3 or 4 people involved on all of these cases, does not prove any cirruption took place.

I have responses to all of that, but I feel these are all credible claims that could be made.

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:41 AM
a reply to: Grambler

Good points but the accumulation of none responses to legal pathways for the public to know is what is going to come to a head . Confidence is going to matter a big bunch at some point where the masses will be digging out rope and pitchforks . Skirting the law and the responsibilities to doing so can only work for so long . A NWO with the law of the jungle wont stand .

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:44 AM
Benghazi testimony in which Chuang represented State Department(direct .pdf link)

Q So it just -- I'm sorry to -- just, it is important, I think to us. At 10:08, or 10:00 o'clock whatever this p.m. on the 11th when this came out, the only specific information that you all had evidence that some had thought to justify the attack on specifically Benghazi being in response to the Prophet movie that we discussed, there was no specific information about that?


Mr. Chuang. Are you asking whether she has information that people knew the motivation, the actual motivations of the attackers, or whether she had information that there were people out there who were justifying this, or defending the behavior because of the movie?

Mr.Beattie. That's a fair question. I guess may be just to talk it out, I think from my perspective, if I were -- if I were clearing on a statement where the Secretary of State was saying that some have sought to justify the attack in Benghazi in response to the Mohammed video, I mean, me personally, I would think that it might have some specific information to justify that, and if you didn't, then it would seem to be an assumption.

Mr. Chuang. What I was asking is, you know, if you are asking whether there is information indicating that the actual attackers were motivated by this movie, that is one thing. And obviously, no one had talked to them, to the attackers at that point.

Mr. Beattie. Sure.

Mr. Chuang. But if you are asking whether there people out in social media universe or otherwise who had sought to justify this behavior by saying it was okay because, you know, it was a good thing to have happened because of the movie, that's a different set of information.

The above referenced excerpt is referencing the YouTube video which was being bandied about as a potential cause for the attack at the agency.

The emails between Hillary and Chelsea show that Hillary knew the video was not at all related in any way to the attack. In regards to this, was it ever determined if Chelsea possesses a valid security clearance to be in the know about such information?

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:54 AM

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Grambler
Excellent thread!

Even if you are a person that feels that there was no wrong doing by the FBI or the previous administration, surely you can admit that having all of these cases being handled by the same 3 or 4 people lacks a form of checks and balances that could ensure no corruption could take place.

Your funny, but I like you!


In addition to funny, you forgot intelligent, wise, and handsome.

Hear Hear. You've won me over for one.

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:55 AM

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: loveguy

Horowitz and Sessions are working together behind the scenes. Their time will come.

Damn I pray you are right. This stuff is sickening.

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:00 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'd be hard pressed to believe Chelsea would have any reason to have a security clearance of any kind...

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:17 PM
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Not sure how the timestamps relate to one another, but if we take a look at this:

9:40 p.m.: Unidentified gunmen launch an assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, quickly overwhelming the U.S. and Libyan forces who were providing security. Inside the compound, security forces are separated from U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. U.S. personnel who retreat to another building come under siege for two hours before a CIA security team and some Libyan security forces repel the attackers.


And compare that to the time Hillary sent Chelsea the first email, it may have only been 10 minutes after the attack started, that Hillary notified Chelsea:

From: H
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 08:51 PM
To: Diane Reynolds
Subject: I'm in my office
Because of attacks on our embassy in Cairo and our office in Benghazi so email when you can talk.

C05794192(direct .pdf link)

I've looked and looked but cannot find anywhere that states Chelsea possesses a security clearance of any kind.

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:19 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Time stamps should both be east coast so should be right on.

Unless it was from HRC BlackBerry that routed through the UAE server in the UK that
edit on 1/15/18 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:21 PM
a reply to: Vasa Croe

If that is the case, then the attack took place (9:40 pm) a bit over an hour after Hillary notified (8:51 pm) Chelsea.

(unless there was some oddness with BB traffic being routed through other time zones
edit on 15-1-2018 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 04:33 PM
Wasn't Cass Sunstein also at Harvard Law with BHO & Teddy Chaung?
OH....Did I mention Cass is married to Samantha Power?

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 04:43 PM
a reply to: IAMTAT

Not Sure about Chuang, or Sustein @ Harvard, but Obama knows him from UoC for certain:

In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, The New York Times reported that Sunstein was one of the few friends Barack Obama made when both were teaching at the University of Chicago Law School in the 1990s: the friendship elevated Sunstein’s profile when Obama became president. His status as a policy luminary was confirmed by his marriage to Samantha Power, J.D. ’99, who is as close to being a real celebrity (read a profile of Power in the New Yorker) as a policy wonk can be.

Harvard Magazine

posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 05:27 PM

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I'd be hard pressed to believe Chelsea would have any reason to have a security clearance of any kind...

actually i kind of wonder. just being a child of a president might require some sort of clearance. u will be in areas and around people where u may overhear low level things and id imagine they would have something to cover such incidents. shoot id think just working in the white house alone would require some sort of clearance even at the lowest levels.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in