It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A congressman described a meeting in which Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) officials informed FBI agent Peter Strzok they had discovered Hillary Clinton’s private email server was hacked by a foreign power.
Strzok acknowledged meeting with the investigators but claimed he didn’t recall what they told him. The FBI said it had no evidence of such a breach but has not explained what, if anything, it did to look for one based on the ICIG’s lead.
Judicial Watch is suing to force the government to produce records showing what the ICIG found.
originally posted by: PilSungMtnMan
a reply to: liveandlearn
That’s why I’m firmly convinced after the DOJ passed on charging him with the leaks two possibilities;
1) they have so much more on PS that when they do charge him it’s devastating
2) he’s so entrenched in the Hoax that he’s singing like a canary and the net widens.
originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
Might as well add this to the new Q thread.....
TO BE READ and FOLLOWED BY ALL:
After a long conversation and consensus among Staff including Mods, Super Mods, Admins and Owners, we are posting the following reminders:
We don't want to shut the thread down or stifle debate.
The T&C must be followed by everyone.
PIZZAGATE, walnut sauce and any other type of PEDOPHILIA talk will not be tolerated. Those topics belong in RATS.
No Political Trolling.....either in words or images.
Forum gangs or the illusion of a special group will not be tolerated.
That includes "Q'ult" and Q team and similar references!!!
External material must be sourced.
Please see the DMCA policy page
Members are always responsible for their own posts.
STAY ON TOPIC!!!!!!!!! Quit the BICKERING!!!!!!!!
Members who repeatedly disregard the T&C may face temporary posting bans or permanent banning.
You are responsible for your own posts.
and, as always:
Do NOT reply to this post!!
In early 2008, Nancy Pelosi and her real estate developer husband, Paul, were given an opportunity to buy into a Visa IPO. It was a nearly impossible feat–one that average citizens almost certainly could never achieve. The vast majority of purchase opportunities went to institutional investors, large mutual funds, or pension funds. Despite Pelosi’s consistent railing against credit card companies, on March 18, 2008, the Pelosis bought between $1 million and $5 million (politicians do not have to report the exact amounts, only ranges) worth of Visa stock at the IPO price of $44 per share. Two days later, the stock price rocketed to $65 per share, yielding a 50% profit. The Pelosis then bought Visa twice more. By their third purchase on June 4, 2008, Visa was worth $85 per share. How did Nancy Pelosi snag one of the most coveted initial public offerings in history? The facts are still emerging. Yet according to Schweizer, corporations that wish to build congressional allies will sometimes hand-pick members of Congress to receive IPOs. Pelosi received her Visa IPO almost two weeks after a potentially damaging piece of legislation for Visa, the Credit Card Fair Fee Act, had been introduced in the House. If passed, the bill would have cut into Visa’s profits substantially by lowering so-called “interchange fees,” the 1% to 3% charge retailers pay Visa when customers use Visa cards for purchases. Interchange fees are a critical source of revenue for the four credit card companies–$48 billion in 2008, to be exact. If the Credit Card Fair Fee Act had been passed into effect, it would have amended antitrust laws to require credit card companies to enter negotiations with merchants over interchange fees, and it would have given the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission the power to arbitrate if the two sides failed to come to an agreement. For that reason, Visa and the other credit card companies strongly opposed the bill. The Credit Card Fair Fee Act was exactly the kind of bill one would think then-Speaker Pelosi would have backed. “She had been outspoken about antitrust problems posed by insurance, oil, and pharmaceutical companies,” Schweizer notes, “and she was vocal about the need for controlling interest rates individual banks charged to use their credit cards.”