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.

 

Obama, Hillary, Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and possibly more could be charged with Treason.

page: 1
72
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+45 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Treason is not an easy charge to apply, even in this political environment. It has connotations of war being waged, or aiding an enemy to wage war against our country (USA).
Wiki Definition of Treason
Cornell definition of Treason
Now that you have the gist of Treason, here's how it can be applied to aforementioned people in the title of the OP.

There are ways to identify materials used in the making of nuclear weapons, this is common knowledge, and as folks here are rather educated I will not link that info.

So we have the Uranium One deal- Brokered by the Clintons so putin could obtain 20% of our uranium. In exchange for this deal the Clintons foundation received 145 million dollars. The Clintons were encouraged to make this happen by Obama and CFIUS approval in exchange for more cash.
All of this was known to William Douglas Campbell, as he was an informant and agent during these dealings.
William Campbell was effectively silenced when he realized what was really going on. He was threatened by Loretta Lynch and Eric Holder and Comey as well as McCabe. Rod Rosenstein even chipped in by changing Campbell's status to victim on a court document to obfuscate the proceedings.
article on William Campbell being silenced
So, now we have the players, and we have the dirty deeds. So how does this become treason?
Well, if one can prove that ANY of that uranium made its way to Iranian or Russian processing facilities that contain dual-use (meaning weapons or non-weaponized applications) equipment or processes, we now have an attempt at war. By providing these materials knowingly to sponsors of terrorism, you are in effect waging war against America by aiding an enemy by facilitating a means to conduct war on America.

So where's Mueller in this? Well he well in advance of all of this that there was corruption involved with all these dealings, yet was there to personally oversee the transfer of yellow cake uranium ti the russians on an airport tarmac.
Muell er, Holder, and McCabe s involvement with U1 deal

So, here we are. We have the players, we have the facts proving these people all knew in advance, of the corruption and bribery. And yet they all wanted a piece of the pie.
And now you know why it's so damn important the Democrats are scrambling to cover their asses mighty hard-

Because this is Treason.

edit on 21-2-2018 by Hewhowaits because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Hewhowaits

I'm no legal expert by a long shot. But remember when Obama introduced sanctions to Russia sometime around the end of 2016? It was half-assed. He kicked a few Russians out of their embassies in the U.S. But still those were sanctions.

My question is: would it be considered treasonous to broker a private deal with a sanctioned nation regardless of what they intended to do with the uranium?
edit on 21-2-2018 by AgarthaSeed because: (no reason given)


+19 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Hewhowaits

Star and flag for an excellent post. You are 100% spot-on!

CNN is a traitor too!
edit on 2/21/2018 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Uhh...the definition of treason in your link is incorrect.
The definition provided is for high treason...
There is
Malfeasance
Treason
High Treason

As there was no declared war against Russia , they could be guilty of treason . Not high treason.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

You don't have to declare war on a contry, or be at war with a country to commit treason.
But I see what your saying.
edit on 21-2-2018 by Hewhowaits because: (no reason given)


But if the materials were used for military purposes in say- Iran or Syria. ...
edit on 21-2-2018 by Hewhowaits because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Obama implemented those sanctions and kicked out the 35 Russians in December of 2016, because he was butt hurt over Hillary losing.

If she had won, Obama would have done nothing at all.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

Knowing the end game of the country was to go around all of our safeguards and agencies to stop that from happening, while there was an active investigation into bribery and corruption to those countries- yes that's treason.


+3 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Hewhowaits

This is a Republican fantasy.



Brokered by the Clintons so putin could obtain 20% of our uranium.


Neither Uraniu One or ARMZ is licensed to export uranium. Hillary was part of a 9 person panel that agreed to the sale.





edit on 21-2-2018 by grey580 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Oh goodness!

I hope barack and hillarty don't get their necks stretched for high treason.


+6 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

No they aren't licensed, and yet the Canadian company that is the acting agent has already been caught attempting to transport it.

The panel of 9 people all knew that this wasn't legal in any way, shape, or form. Many loopholes were stretched and palms greased for this to work. All while the Russians were being investigated for trying to bribe their way into this deal. They even bragged about it publicly.
edit on 21-2-2018 by Hewhowaits because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:24 PM
link   
A little article on Tenam co. And Mikerin, the Russian agent that Obama knew was under investigation, yet approved a visa for, and worked with to set this in motion.
Obama knew
edit on 21-2-2018 by Hewhowaits because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Uhh...the definition of treason in your link is incorrect.
The definition provided is for high treason...
There is
Malfeasance
Treason
High Treason

As there was no declared war against Russia , they could be guilty of treason . Not high treason.


Updated Treason definition with Cornell University's interpretation.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 04:56 PM
link   
They shoved the deal through in record time too.


S+F


+5 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Obama, Hillary, Mueller, Comey, Rosenstein, and possibly more could be charged with Treason.

It really comes down to how you define the United states.

It's not the people.

It's the US government as a whole.

When a political party subverts the rule of law for their own ends?

That's TREASON.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: Hewhowaits

I'm no legal expert by a long shot. But remember when Obama introduced sanctions to Russia sometime around the end of 2016? It was half-assed. He kicked a few Russians out of their embassies in the U.S. But still those were sanctions.

My question is: would it be considered treasonous to broker a private deal with a sanctioned nation regardless of what they intended to do with the uranium?



Meanwhile Trump has had Russian sanctions for months wating to be signed still. Funny North Korea sanctions don't take that long.

Also, no on the OP.




+1 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Hewhowaits



So we have the Uranium One deal- Brokered by the Clintons so putin could obtain 20% of our uranium.


Nope. None of that is true. Firstly, the deal wasn't "brokered" by the US let alone "the Clintons." Uranium One was a Canadian company which had purchased US mines. As such, CFIUS had to approve the deal. CFIUS was only one body that had to do so. Canada had to approve of the deal, as did Kazakhstan (where the company had other mines) and I imagine Russia.

The State Dept hass 1 of 9 CFIUS votes. Clinton neither attended the CFIUS meetings regarding the deal nor did she cast a vote. That was all done by Jose W. Fernandez, the then Asst Sec of State for Economic, Energy, and Business Affairs.

None of the uranium has gone to Russia. Exports are strictly controlled by the NRC. In fact, neither Uranium One nor Rosatom (actually ARMZ) have export licenses. Some amount of uranium was sent via third party to Canada. Later, a portion of that uranium was permitted to be exported to Europe.

Also, the 20% thing is the portion of the estimated uranium deposits in the US (proven reserves), estimated to be in the mines.


In exchange for this deal the Clintons foundation received 145 million dollars.


Sure they did. 98% of the figure quoted was received as part of a funding commitment to an initiative ($100 million for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative) from Frank Giustra, who is a noted philanthropist who has donated similarly large amounts to other charitable causes, and from a celebrity benefit Giustra organized.

All this was done in 2007. At that time, the company that eventually sold to the Russians didn't even exist. Later in 2007, South African company Uranium One bought up the company Giustra founded, UrAsia Energy and the newly merged company kept the Uranium One name. At that time, in 2007, Giustra sold all his shares for around $45 million.

The deal approved by CFIUS and everyone else was the purchase of a 51% (up from 16%) stake in Uranium One. That was occurred in 2010.

So your theory is that Giustra personally donated $100 million dollars to influence a decision to sell a company he no longer held stock in, three years later? And his master plan netted him $45 million less whatever he had invested in the company initially? Genius.

That's a debunking of a mere two sentences worth of disinformation. I'm not inclined to continue but how much do you want to bet that I could easily debunk the rest considering that your primary source is the Gateway-fake news-Pundit?

This stuff is depressing to me. That so many posters have spent so much time talking about this and yet, can't be bothered to do even a little bit of leg work to get a grasp of the basic facts in question. What is that? Who invests that much time and still knows so little?
edit on 2018-2-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

It was uranium stock. Not actual uranium.
How do you guys argue this issue over and over and not know that?
There was no product. No uranium left our country. It was shares of uranium stock in a Canadian company with interests in the western United States.


The 2010 deal allowed Rosatom, the Russian nuclear energy agency, to acquire a controlling stake in Uranium One, a Canadian-based company with mining stakes in the Western United States.


www.factcheck.org...

If you want to open a discussion you should at least research the subject.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

All that effort into a post defending corruption at the highest levels of our government. This is why such corruption exists and maintains power. Keep their supporters vehemently partisan where truth means nothing. Replace Clinton with Trump and you will be singing a different tune.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

You have an 800 number Miss Chloe?
I want my fortune told too please.



posted on Feb, 21 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: grey580

They refuse to even try to understand what's going on.



new topics

top topics



 
72
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join