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.
But I will say on this thread, there is almost an eerie silence.
Say something, say something, anything
I've shown you everything
Give me a sign
Say something, say something, anything
Your silence is deafening
Pay me in kind
I would love to know how she knew, but we are unlikely to get that information. But as I mentioned in response to your first point above, regardless of how she knew, it doesn't matter. She accepted the millions of dollars from the Saudis, she sent Bill to deal with them, and she sent the Podesta group to run a PR show for them.
But this is exactly what Hillary did. She sent her campaign managers brothers law firm to represent a country that she knows is sponsoring what is supposedly Americas greatest enemy, Isis. And she took millions upon millions of dollars from them.
So no matter what Hillarys intentions were, she is clearly sending Bill and the Podesta group to work with the Saudis whom she knows is arming Isis. These are private citizens conducting foreign affairs at the behest of the US government.
If you say this is not the case, then that means 100% that the Podesta group is not acting to put pressure on the Saudis for Isis, but is actually trying to cover for them using PR.
originally posted by: RickinVa
Star and Flag....
This is the stuff that Assange may have been referencing,,,, if it catches on with the people.
This is a potentially huge story if enough people get interested.
originally posted by: stinkelbaum
a reply to: Grambler
Keep in mind that the leaked email was from August 17 2014.
isis were still our allies until 2015.
the ignorance on here is astounding at times.
In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists -- Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.
So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East -- including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home countries and carry out deadly attacks.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
A third option might be that she has her own sources of intelligence. The Clinton Foundation might have a small staff but they are obviously very well funded and always conducting projects around the globe but perhaps MOST importantly and it's not even a secret (in fact, it's part of the foundation's stated mission) they hold members only conferences.
Hold that thought for a moment.
People have been looking at the CF as some way for the Clinton's to make money through pay-for-play schemes but there's absolutely no evidence of embezzlement or even Trump-like self-dealing.
It's long been my opinion that that the CF is simply a vehicle for furthering the Clinton's influence but maybe even that is something of an understatement. Perhaps we should be looking at the CF as really being something more along the lines of a secret society with the Clintons as its leadership? People are conceiving it as a crooked charity but maybe it's more like the Clinton's own Bilderberg Group?
See here even you're doing it. "She took millions upon millions of dollars from them." She took them or the foundation took them? I don't know that the Clintons are concerned with having more and more money because they love being rich. I don't believe that what motivates the Clintons is greed. I believe what motivates the Clintons is power.
It's no secret that there are factions within any government. Even so, here in the West we expect that the whole of the government is ultimately under the direction of its executive, the President and the control of Congress (it's not a PERFECT analogy but similar to a corporate structure with executives, a CEO and a board of directors).
This is clearly not the case in many parts of the world where factions may have more or less independent control of parts of government — even if it's a de facto control rather than legal. It's fairly obvious as this factional infighting often leads to coups. I think this is an important nuance to consider when evaluating a number of countries, particularly in the ME. In other words, we can make agreements with heads of state but factions within their governments may have their own agendas.
And of course there's always scenarios where nations are strategically playing two opposing sides simultaneously. For instance, funding a group that attacks an adversary while allying with a third party that is an adversary of the group in order to contain that group. Can you really name a government that hasn't done that exact thing or something very similar?
n July, some of Perot's past actions, including a private investigation of the Bush family in the late 1980s, circulated in the media, causing frustration for the campaign. Perot blamed the reports on a "Republican research team" and claimed that he was warned that since he had such a "clean record they have got to try to redefine you and destroy you".[53] Campaign officials tried to come up with a new strategy to combat the negative press, and to end Perot's use of generalizations on the issues
Perot remained in the public eye after the election and championed opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), urging voters to listen for the "giant sucking sound" of American jobs heading south to Mexico should NAFTA be ratified.
thought Americans were disillusioned with the state of politics as being corrupt and unable to deal with vital issues. Perot claimed to represent a viable alternative to Republicans and Democrats.
Direct election of the United States President by popular vote
Enforcement of existing immigration laws and opposition to illegal immigration
Opposition to free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and Central America Free Trade Agreement, and a call for withdrawal from the World Trade Organization
A noticeable absence from the Reform Party platform has been social issues, including abortion and gay rights. Reform Party representatives had long stated beliefs that their party could bring together people from both sides of these issues, which they consider divisive, to address what they considered to be more vital concerns as expressed in their platform.
Donald Trump entered the race briefly, giving television interviews outlining his platform. Trump was progressive on social issues, and supported allowing openly gay soldiers in the military, saying: "it would not disturb me."[6] Trump considered himself a conservative, but criticized Pat Buchanan, saying: "I'm on the conservative side, but Buchanan is Attila the Hun."[7] He withdrew from the race citing the party's infighting,[8] as did Jesse Ventura and the Minnesota Reform Party. Donald Trump stated: "So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman, Mr. Duke, a neo-Nazi, Mr. Buchanan, and a communist, Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep."[9][10] "Mr. Duke" was a reference to David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler
Either of those may very well be the case. There's a couple of wrinkles though:
1. The Logan Act specifically covers nations with which the government is having disputes.
2. In the context of the Logan Act, what is "without authority of the United States?" In other words, what if the Obama administration was involved? I honestly don't know what the implications would be.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
A third option might be that she has her own sources of intelligence. The Clinton Foundation might have a small staff but they are obviously very well funded and always conducting projects around the globe but perhaps MOST importantly and it's not even a secret (in fact, it's part of the foundation's stated mission) they hold members only conferences.
originally posted by: Grambler
So Hillary knew that the saudis and Qatar were sponsering Isis. This is huge in its own right for non election reasons.
originally posted by: DelMarvel
originally posted by: Grambler
So Hillary knew that the saudis and Qatar were sponsering Isis. This is huge in its own right for non election reasons.
EVERYBODY knows that and has for a long time. You've been able to easily read about that for years.
Non-story.