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.

 

JUST DECLASSIFIED: The Russia hoax was Hillary’s plan, Obama-Biden WH was briefed on it.

page: 3
98
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Wonder why the Mueller Report missed this ?

😃


Exactly - and I wonder why Comey never mentioned it during his hearings...
Why has Brennan never mentioned it...




posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrennanHuff22

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Anon283799

Lot of 'alleged' in there.


It also actually says, "the IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation, or the actual extent of exaggeration of any Russian intel analysis, or fabrication of"

It's just another typical LG waste of time, 'investigation' for gulls to look at, hopefully not too closely.


Then why did Robby Mook bring up Trump/Russia on the 1st day of the DNC Convention? The date was July 15, 2016.

Heres the clip:

twitter.com...


Great find! The pieces of the puzzle keep coming together in public View. Naturally, Barr and Durham already have all this... And they are approving it for release at this time.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: xuenchen
Wonder why the Mueller Report missed this ?

😃


Exactly - and I wonder why Comey never mentioned it during his hearings...
Why has Brennan never mentioned it...



Director of National Intelligence James Clapper mentioned twice on CNN that Barack Obama ordered the implementation of these operations against President Trump.

Because Hillary was losing so badly in the real polls, She came up with the ideas, but only Barack Obama could order the entrapment and framing.
edit on 9/29/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6
At it's core(pardon the pun) you ALLEGEDLY have an government official instructing the FBI to trap a political rival. If this happened Obama knew Biden too. It's abuse of power.


See correction. Let me know when it's been proven.




edit on 29-9-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: 👁️💗🍕



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
It also actually says, "the IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation, or the actual extent of exaggeration of any Russian intel analysis, or fabrication of"


Stuff like this doesn't stop the fappery though, most of the people here are just in it for the bias confirmation.




edit on 29-9-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: KansasGirl
I can’t be expected to read the entire thread before I reply, even if it’s only 2 pages at that point. I’m too busy doing Kansas-y things.


It's on page 1, the 12th post of the thread, it's not like you had to wade through a huge amount of posts.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Anon283799

Lot of 'alleged' in there.


You do know the house "impeached" Trump with about the same alledged type evidence..


That’s total nonsense. Trump was impeached for abuse of office for attempting to shake down the Ukrainian president in order to improve Trump’s election chances, and for contempt of Congress. The evidence against Trump was the phone call itself, for which there is a transcript and multiple witnesses that it took place along with multiple other documents creating a paper trail of what happened before and after the call, and witnesses to those documents. Trump himself admits that the call took place and thinks it was “perfect”. None of the information used against Trump in the impeachment came from the IC or the DOJ/FBI.

In this case, we have the IC overhearing some Russian internal conversations about a supposed Hillary plot and not having any way of knowing whether the Russians were exaggerating or fabricating. No witnesses to any such plot, no evidence, no chain of evidence, nada.

The IC was absolutely correct to turn these rumors over to the FBI for investigation, but rumors don’t constitute evidence.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BrennanHuff22

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Anon283799

Lot of 'alleged' in there.


It also actually says, "the IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation, or the actual extent of exaggeration of any Russian intel analysis, or fabrication of"

It's just another typical LG waste of time, 'investigation' for gulls to look at, hopefully not too closely.


Then why did Robby Mook bring up Trump/Russia on the 1st day of the DNC Convention? The date was July 15, 2016.

Heres the clip:

twitter.com...


GCHQ 2015!



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Apparently most posters in this thread cannot even be bothered to read the first sentence of the letter sent to Graham that is offered in the OP.

You first said there was a lot of ''alleged'' in the letter. I would expand that to nothing but allegations, Russian allegations.

The Russians said and the IC heard it and reported it up the line, unconfirmed allegations and all along with the disclaimer that that was all they had.

As Ole Joe Friday said, '' the facts mam and only the facts''



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: BrennanHuff22

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Anon283799

Lot of 'alleged' in there.


It also actually says, "the IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation, or the actual extent of exaggeration of any Russian intel analysis, or fabrication of"

It's just another typical LG waste of time, 'investigation' for gulls to look at, hopefully not too closely.


Then why did Robby Mook bring up Trump/Russia on the 1st day of the DNC Convention? The date was July 15, 2016.

Heres the clip:

twitter.com...


GCHQ 2015!


It is looking more like the gchq intelligence communication referencing President Obama ordering the surveillance was the real deal.
edit on 9/29/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Anon283799

Feels like Christmas. A guy can hope. Time to make them guests of honor at the prison spit roast.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bigsnowman

The "interference" wasn't through hacking the voting machines or changing the vote count or anything. They allegedly posted things on social media. Pretty weak.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Again if there was viable actionable evidence the House would have had no problem convincing enough Senators to join them. They couldn't be cause the evidence was flimsy and doing so would have been wrong on a number of levels. Not to mention the leader in question even said he didn't feel pressured at all by Trump. All you got was the questionable testimony of Vindiman



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Apparently most posters in this thread cannot even be bothered to read the first sentence of the letter sent to Graham that is offered in the OP.


The action in the thread is circular and somewhat jerky.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: BrennanHuff22

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Anon283799

Lot of 'alleged' in there.


It also actually says, "the IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation, or the actual extent of exaggeration of any Russian intel analysis, or fabrication of"

It's just another typical LG waste of time, 'investigation' for gulls to look at, hopefully not too closely.


Then why did Robby Mook bring up Trump/Russia on the 1st day of the DNC Convention? The date was July 15, 2016.

Heres the clip:

twitter.com...


GCHQ 2015!


It is looking more like the gchq intelligence communication referencing President Obama ordering the surveillance was the real deal.


Most likely, since Brennan was given the information to pass on, so Brennan did his job...nothing to do with Clinton.

Furthermore, the reported suspicious activity between Trump associates and Russian intelligence was also given by,
Germany, Estonia and Poland. Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Dutch and the French.

As an aside, Trump was informed of the GCHQ intel input at an early stage, and probably all the other countries too.
Trump himself, was not being investigated by GCHQ during that time, the information given to Brennan was a 'heads up' to the US intel. Trump knew then, that it was not any Clinton conspiracy...so he made up the e-mails chant in debates.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: notquiteright
a reply to: bigsnowman

The "interference" wasn't through hacking the voting machines or changing the vote count or anything. They allegedly posted things on social media. Pretty weak.


It likely had worked a treat here at ATS, and still is....with all the Orangeman men!
edit on 29-9-2020 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Anon283799

Lot of 'alleged' in there.


You do know the house "impeached" Trump with about the same alledged type evidence..


That’s total nonsense. Trump was impeached for abuse of office for attempting to shake down the Ukrainian president in order to improve Trump’s election chances, and for contempt of Congress. The evidence against Trump was the phone call itself, for which there is a transcript and multiple witnesses that it took place along with multiple other documents creating a paper trail of what happened before and after the call, and witnesses to those documents. Trump himself admits that the call took place and thinks it was “perfect”. None of the information used against Trump in the impeachment came from the IC or the DOJ/FBI.


And not one of the witnesses said anything damning, several admitted there was nothing to the call. I watched all of the public hearings and most of the "witnesses" made fools of themselves because they got their info second-hand or didn't believe there was anything wrong with the call.

Trump didn't do anything wrong in that call and I would say the same if it had been Biden making that call with those words. The impeachment was phony and purely political. There is nothing that can prove otherwise.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Anon283799

Lot of 'alleged' in there.


You do know the house "impeached" Trump with about the same alledged type evidence..


That’s total nonsense. Trump was impeached for abuse of office for attempting to shake down the Ukrainian president in order to improve Trump’s election chances, and for contempt of Congress. The evidence against Trump was the phone call itself, for which there is a transcript and multiple witnesses that it took place along with multiple other documents creating a paper trail of what happened before and after the call, and witnesses to those documents. Trump himself admits that the call took place and thinks it was “perfect”. None of the information used against Trump in the impeachment came from the IC or the DOJ/FBI.



Did you miss the part where the transcripts of the phone call--that the White Willfully released--didn't support the narrative? There was never any indication that the Ukrainian PM had reason to make a connection between the delay in aid, and a request to investigate Hunter Biden. The only witness that came close to proving anything was a man that expressly heard Trump say that he has no intention of withholding funds to influence the Ukrainian PM, but "felt" that Trump meant otherwise. Ultimately, even if he had, that still wouldn't be a high crime or misdemeanor as required under the U.S. Constitution. For that matter, neither is "Contempt of Congress", which was invented just for this impeachment.



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Apparently most posters in this thread cannot even be bothered to read the first sentence of the letter sent to Graham that is offered in the OP.


The action in the thread is circular and somewhat jerky.


Did you bring saltines?



posted on Sep, 29 2020 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
Did you bring saltines?


Don't you think there's enough crackers already?




edit on 29-9-2020 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude has no beer




top topics



 
98
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join