Wikileaks Hillary knew Saudis sponsored ISIS took money from them, and helped cover it up

a reply to: Grambler

You (the collective) have done great work here by piecing this together.

But I will say on this thread, there is almost an eerie silence.

This is true, there seems to be no counterargument or spin that can be placed on this, which is why I think people are perhaps reeling a bit about the information.

But make no mistake, this goes far beyond partisan line toeing here, and perhaps that is the reason for the silence.



In the words of James, from the song Say Something:

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

Nah nah, talking about sleeping with married women is so much worse!

I have a hard time believing I ever sympathized with liberals because recently I find them so infuriating!

Going to have to watch what jewelry she is wearing to determine when she is secretly signaling solidarity with ISIS and the Saudi Royals as she spews out her "public position" lies.

a reply to: Grambler

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

a reply to: Grambler

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.

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.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Many of us here on ATS have said it is a Big Globalist Slush Fund disguised as a charitable foundation. It launders money, rewards big donors with various "assists", and operates more like a mafia-style crime syndicate. The really upper echelon of the operation function under the code of omerta, and those that slip up, get the old "suicide" or "timely accident" demise.

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.

While it is getting little to no traction on here (surprise, surprise), it is blowing up on Reddit, EVEN with it being almost hidden from the front pages.

Plus, FOX is giving it some coverage, but they are hedging their bets.

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.

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.

Hahaha!

Ignorance on our part huh.

So Hillary sends this email August 17 2014.

Then Bill meets with the Saudi king on September 4 2014

Then the podesta group was hired by the Saudis as a PR firm on September 18.

Between the 4th and the 18th, President Obama gave a famous speech about fighting Isis on September 10th.

Here is a bit of what he said

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.

www.whitehouse.gov...

So you are trying to tell me that on August 17th when Hillary sent this email we were allies with Isis, but about 24 days later, Obama is giving a speech about how we need to destroy them citing how they kill children, rape women, etc.

But you are right, we are ignorant.

Oh and the BBC knew in early August that they were our enemy.
www.bbc.com...

So could you please provide me a link for Isis being our ally in August of 2014?

And how does that change the fact that Hillary still kept money from the Isis sponsors to this day, and actually sent the Podesta PR firm to help the Saudi maintain a good image?

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?

This is a definite possibility. If so, then even the Obama adminstration should be appalled by this, unless she even exerts control over him.

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.

The Clinton foundation took 10 to 25 million from the saudis. However, Bill received more than a half of a million in speaking fees, and Hillary received at least a half a million dollars of jewelry. This also doesn't take into account the money that the Podesta group charged to be the PR firm.

The saudis also gave insane amounts of money to Obama, Michelle, John Kerry and his wife, and many other diplomats. And they all knew that the Saudis sponsored Isis but still took these gifts.

Or if you are right and the clinton foundation is like a secret society, maybe the above people didn't know. But if that is the case, then Obama needs to prosecute Hillary right now, now that is obvious she was working with the Saudis to cover up their Isis sponsorship.

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?

I won't deny any of this. But we now have proof of what Hillary was doing, and we should hold her accountable by spreading this information and refusing to vote for her.

If our government is seperate factions fighting each other, the first step to correcting it would be not putting someone in power that we have proof is aiding our countries enemy.

Essentially damning evidence that Hillary Clinton and George Bush are part of the false two party system with the same goals and allies. Normally, almost any candidate would be neatly seated into this two party narrative, but like Ron And Rand Paul, Donald Trump has been since the days of Ross Perot, part of the isolationist/nationalist movement that wanted to get Americans out of the middle east quagmire.

en.wikipedia.org...

Look: Deja vous

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.

Having flashbacks yet?

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.

Trump left the party because of infighting and, frankly, being lumped in with the KKK.

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.

Who knew Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump used to be part of the same political party?

The sum total of this material, is how it conflicts with the two party paradigm and agenda of the Clinton/Bush group connected to the Saudi/Qatar funding and support of Terrorism.

a reply to: skynet2015

"Who knew Jesse Ventura and Donald Trump used to be part of the same political party? "

Me. I read all of this (and more) the week that Trump announced he was running.

Trump essentially helped GWB take Florida, in 2000. In part, that's why I believe he is helping the establishment candidate, now.

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.

Well we are at war with Isis, so I would think that a state sponsor of them would qualify as having a dispute.

There were questions of Trumps connections to Isis and Carter (as you know you made the thread) violating the Logan act. How are these connections to the Saudis knowing that they are sponsoring Isis not just as bad if not worse.

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.

Bingo! What if Obama was involved? The rabbit hole goes deeper.

Do you honestly believe that Obama didn't know what Hillary was doing? For gods sake, it was written about in a yahoo news story.

Obama knew Hillary knew the sponsored Isis, and he knew that Bill met with the Saudi king, and two weeks later they hired the Podesta group to run there PR.

Keep in mind, the Saudis were also giving Obama and Michelle and his kids and John Kerry and his wife millions of dollars of gifts.

Its no wonder we are now seeing that the Obama adminstration was helping Hillary out with the email scandal.

If Hillary goes down, they may just be next.

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.

Well, we know the Hillary campaign, the CF, the CGI, and Chelsea contract with the same private intelligence and security firm staffed by former FBI and SS agents.

I am sure that's not the only private intelligence firm they contract with.

a reply to: Grambler

You are right in every respect, but unfortunately, these people have a huge shield protecting them from this information getting out to the average person, mainly, the main stream media.

People are busy with work, family, school, entertainment, etc. The political arena just doesn't interest most of them, so this information will probably die on the vine.

If I were Trump, I would document every bit of it and put it in a link on his website. Then I would stand up at the next debate, look directly into the camera, and tell folks to go there and read something that will make you sick to your stomach to know about. I wouldn't elaborate....just say, "It is something all Americans need to know before they cast their vote, and it is something that has been hidden by the media, but go there NOW before the government takes it down".

Debates are too constricted time-wise to fully lay out Hillary's criminality. It needs to be documented subject by subject in a concise easy-to-comprehend format, so average Americans can read it for themselves and be amazed.

Wow - This really could be the end of Hillary...

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.

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.

Right, here we go again.

When people said that before that Hillary was chummy with Qatar and the Saudis, and her and her foundation took millions of dollars from them knowing that they sponsored Isis, they were told that they were conspiracy theorist, and told they had no proof.

Now when we have proof that not only is it the case that Saudi did in fact sponsor Isis, and Hillary did in fact take millions from them, but now we find out she also sent her campaign manager firm to them to help keep their public image look good and bury their crimes, people say...

"No big deal, we knew it all along"

How is this not a big deal? What in this election is a bigger deal than one of the candidates working with an organization that is deemed Americas biggest enemy, that rapes, murders, and takes child sex slaves?

I notice you commented on Trumps lewd comments on another thread, and how you thought the fcat that he let this get out proved that he was incompetent.

Telling you think that is a big deal, but not this.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

And we also know that that private security and intelligence firm also has ties to their private, in home health service.

And we have to parse her words to determine whether it's a public poaition or a private position.



To the thread in general, a few of us have been saying that Obama is involved in the shenanigans for a while now.