The Clinton Pattern - From Uranium One to Saudi and Qatar

originally posted by: Grambler
Interesting that apparently no one really has responded with a defense of Hillary.

They may just not be online which is absolutely fine.

But I was hopeing to hear what some of her defenders would say about this.

I rather liked Assange’s assessment of Hillary, revealing that he felt sorry for her and that he believed she was a victim of her own ambition.

She should still burn, though.

To one of your points, im convinced that much of these lucrative "speaking engagements" are just thinly veiled bribery. I know many of us on here realize that, but a lot of people I know in my personal life don't. a reply to: nwtrucker

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Agreed. What could be so profound it costs $500,000 just to listen to?

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Grambler

no one is going to defend $hillary... but what exactly are you trying to accomplish...

a pattern that is more obvious than the Clinton corruption trails is that whenever a shred of new information or revelation which may shed some negative light on the Trump administration or Trump himself is brought up, here you come with some insight on Clinton or the Obama administration or even even past admins.... peddling the same monotony.

And there it is...great comment that defines those that are hard party line fundamentalists, and the MAIN reason nothing is ever done or accomplished because people on BOTH sides believe two wrongs in fact DO make a a right!!!!

Your party did it too...same thing is going on with your party...how can you vilify my party when your party are villains themselves???? SERIOUSLY!!!!???

Round and round and round it goes ad nauseam and meanwhile, both parties get away with EVERYTHING they want because the the people are to busy equating and equalizing corruption!!!! Never coming together to actually freaking say, WE HAVE A MUTUAL PROBLEM HERE THAT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO ONE PARTY...BUT BOTH!!!!!

Both parties wholeheartedly think that if they can equalize the corruption, it somehow justifies their beliefs and loyalty!!!! MEANING: by comparing you are accepting ..BOTTOM LINE.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS AND SELF-DEFEATING to try and play down mutual corruption and law breaking ACROSS PARTY LINES by playing the "they do it... so do they" game!!!

It absolutely accomplishes NOTHING!!!

IT NEEDS TO SERIOUSLY STOP.

THESE LEADERS ARE NOT THE SAVIORS OF YOUR VIRTUES, VALUES, OR BELIEFS!!!

It only serves the guilty and divides the people of this country....PERIOD!!!
.

Couldn't have said it better. Hillary's corrupt and Trump is just as corrupt. Yet because Trump continually points his finger at her, people ignore his cheats..

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
To one of your points, im convinced that much of these lucrative "speaking engagements" are just thinly veiled bribery. I know many of us on here realize that, but a lot of people I know in my personal life don't. a reply to: nwtrucker

Ironically, it's perfectly legal...in a sense.

The sequence seems to be select a political target and speak against that group, nation or industry publically. Next, a quite backdoor communication that a donation and a generous speaking fee could earn a 'more positive political opinion'. Deliver on that change of political direction and find a new 'customer' to criticize.

Slick.

It might go all the way back to Gates and the attack that burst the high tech bubble, in the day. It seems many jumped on the band wagon on a preventative basis to avoid the initial criticism move. Payoff in advance, so to speak.

I recall sites stating that many wanted refunds from the 'foundation' due to Hillary's loss. Makes sense, if true.

Just guessing, though.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
To one of your points, im convinced that much of these lucrative "speaking engagements" are just thinly veiled bribery. I know many of us on here realize that, but a lot of people I know in my personal life don't. a reply to: nwtrucker

A late afterthought on this. The perception is that Congress has acted in a similar fashion for decades. This would be in the form of campaign donations, Lobbyists, gifts, etc. This was on an individual basis.

All this version did was move basically the same mechanism to the Executive Branch via Bill and Hillary. Much more power to assign policy, monies/funding, etc. than individual Congressmen could.

At the least, Obama maintained a 'Quid pro quo' agreement with the Clintons and their 'system' as long as Obama's personal agenda was kept in mind.

Again, what do I know?

This is really telling. 3 pages in, and crickets from those that would defend her. Only thing I saw was a generic "this has been debunked" comment, with no explanation as to exactly how it has and a "but Trump is a criminal too!".

Anyone with eyes sees what this is. She and her foundation got 140+ million dollars for greasing the skids for this U1 deal. Without her, it doesn't get done, so she got her slice of the pie. A big one at that. Yes, but let's ignore this, because it obviously has been bebunked.

originally posted by: Grambler
At the very least, I assumed people on the left would reject the hillary part but still be outraged by the admission from the former prime minister of Qatar that they would with the US to attack assad from the get go, and actually the entire us establishment have been selling ANOTHER FAKE WAR!!!

Boy if it was Bush in charge, they would be marching in the streets calling for war tribunals.

But Obama and Hillary, nah all of the deaths that this cause were cool.

How disgusting.

Before that there was...

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
This is really telling. 3 pages in, and crickets from those that who would defend her. Only thing I saw was a generic "this has been debunked" comment, with no explanation as to exactly how it has and a "but Trump is a criminal too!".

Anyone with eyes sees what this is. She and her foundation got 140+ million of dollars for greasing the skids for this U1 deal. Without her, it doesn't get done, so she got her slice of the pie. A big one at that. Yes, but let's ignore this, because it obviously has been bebunked.

Yep.

But thats ok, I will still continue to try to have a discussion.

Unlike some people on the other side, I will not call anyone who doesn't want to talk about this "traitors" or anything like that.

originally posted by: ABNARTY
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Agreed. What could be so profound it costs $500,000 just to listen to?

I will have to say Pink Floyd's the Wall is worth that for a Stadium to pay.

originally posted by: lostbook

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Grambler

no one is going to defend $hillary... but what exactly are you trying to accomplish...

a pattern that is more obvious than the Clinton corruption trails is that whenever a shred of new information or revelation which may shed some negative light on the Trump administration or Trump himself is brought up, here you come with some insight on Clinton or the Obama administration or even even past admins.... peddling the same monotony.

And there it is...great comment that defines those that are hard party line fundamentalists, and the MAIN reason nothing is ever done or accomplished because people on BOTH sides believe two wrongs in fact DO make a a right!!!!

Your party did it too...same thing is going on with your party...how can you vilify my party when your party are villains themselves???? SERIOUSLY!!!!???

Round and round and round it goes ad nauseam and meanwhile, both parties get away with EVERYTHING they want because the the people are to busy equating and equalizing corruption!!!! Never coming together to actually freaking say, WE HAVE A MUTUAL PROBLEM HERE THAT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO ONE PARTY...BUT BOTH!!!!!

Both parties wholeheartedly think that if they can equalize the corruption, it somehow justifies their beliefs and loyalty!!!! MEANING: by comparing you are accepting ..BOTTOM LINE.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY LUDICROUS AND SELF-DEFEATING to try and play down mutual corruption and law breaking ACROSS PARTY LINES by playing the "they do it... so do they" game!!!

It absolutely accomplishes NOTHING!!!

IT NEEDS TO SERIOUSLY STOP.

THESE LEADERS ARE NOT THE SAVIORS OF YOUR VIRTUES, VALUES, OR BELIEFS!!!

It only serves the guilty and divides the people of this country....PERIOD!!!
.

Couldn't have said it better. Hillary's corrupt and Trump is just as corrupt. Yet because Trump continually points his finger at her, people ignore his cheats..

You're still doing it. Smh....

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
This is really telling. 3 pages in, and crickets from those that who would defend her. Only thing I saw was a generic "this has been debunked" comment, with no explanation as to exactly how it has and a "but Trump is a criminal too!".

Anyone with eyes sees what this is. She and her foundation got 140+ million of dollars for greasing the skids for this U1 deal. Without her, it doesn't get done, so she got her slice of the pie. A big one at that. Yes, but let's ignore this, because it obviously has been bebunked.

Yep.

But thats ok, I will still continue to try to have a discussion.

Unlike some people on the other side, I will not call anyone who doesn't want to talk about this "traitors" or anything like that.

It is their right to free speech but they might be hurting the future of free speech taking such hypocritical stances on so many subjects the last few years. As you have pointed out on many threads, the speech is freely allowed if they agree with the content.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
This is really telling. 3 pages in, and crickets from those that who would defend her. Only thing I saw was a generic "this has been debunked" comment, with no explanation as to exactly how it has and a "but Trump is a criminal too!".

Anyone with eyes sees what this is. She and her foundation got 140+ million of dollars for greasing the skids for this U1 deal. Without her, it doesn't get done, so she got her slice of the pie. A big one at that. Yes, but let's ignore this, because it obviously has been bebunked.

Yep.

But thats ok, I will still continue to try to have a discussion.

Unlike some people on the other side, I will not call anyone who doesn't want to talk about this "traitors" or anything like that.

It is their right to free speech but they might be hurting the future of free speech taking such hypocritical stances on so many subjects the last few years. As you have pointed out on many threads, the speech is freely allowed if they agree with the content.

I honestly think most of these people are probably well intentioned good people.

Its just that they have been indoctrinated for so long by their side that they can't process evidence that shows there side can do corrupt stuff to.

Now when confronted with facts that go against their narrative, they know, they just know, that their side can do no wrong, and so they ignore the evidence, or claim its a lie or debunked with giving no proof of that, or they downplay it in some way.

It makes for the most insane double standards.

Just look at some of these claims.

"Any colluding with russians to dig up dirt on your opponents is criminal"

Ok we have proof that is exactly what Hillarys team did.

"But her colluding with russians is ok"

And so forth.

I will still try to lay out facts and have discussions with these people.

And I also acknowledge that sometimes I can be just as irrational from my biases, and strive to fight them.

But I think the info in this thread is very immportant, and its worth getting it out there for others to see.

a reply to: Grambleralways a good read grambler. i could be wrong but during times of war giving military and financial aid to enemy is treason am i right and punishment for treason during time a war is still a firing squad.barry,slick willy and podestas lined up in row of course hilly will plead her belly.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: Grambleralways a good read grambler. i could be wrong but during times of war giving military and financial aid to enemy is treason am i right and punishment for treason during time a war is still a firing squad.barry,slick willy and podestas lined up in row of course hilly will plead her belly.

I argued on the Saudi thread I posted on the OP that the fact that Hillary admitted that the government of Saudi was arming or greatest enemy at the time Isis, and two weeks later she sent Bill to meet with them and then two weeks after that she sent the Podesta group to run PR for them to help cover up these connections, that it was possibly treason.

a reply to: Grambler

No, it would not be treason. Even if there were bribes involved, there was no threat to national security at a time when the policy was to improve relations. The Trumps, however, were plotting with a country we currently have eco comic sanctions against. This is an economic a t of war, and the intent was to undermine the right of the people to a fair election. That would be treason.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

Sorry, but there are just too many bots for real people to keep up with.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

No, it would not be treason. Even if there were bribes involved, there was no threat to national security at a time when the policy was to improve relations. The Trumps, however, were plotting with a country we currently have eco comic sanctions against. This is an economic a t of war, and the intent was to undermine the right of the people to a fair election. That would be treason.

A private citizen (which Hillary was at the time) helping cover for a foriegn country arm our greatest enemy, isis. Sounds pretty bad to me.

And since we now know that Hillary was paying for dirt agianst trump from Kremlin agents, I assume you are calling for her arrest.

a reply to: Grambler

And there you have it. The answer to this thread by folks; THis is a distraction, its been debunked!!! They have nothing to say.

People have had plenty to say. The problem is that you don't listen and refuse to understand what you have been told.

For two weeks or so, people have been telling you how you were wrong on the U1 aspect, backed-up with proper links and sources, yet you continue to plug your ears. In fact, you've created multiple threads reusing the same bad information, false equivalencies and logical fallacies...continually doubling-down on your desire to spread that disinformation.

For example:

In short, we now know that the FBI had an informant that was looking into some of the players in the Uranium one deal for Bribery and such in 2009, before the Uranium One deal was voted on.

The person/people being looked in to for bribery and such were not part of the deal making process. The bribery and no-bid contracts were made by a US contractor/subsidiary that was trying to get kickbacks for a transportation contract.

So to say they were players in the U1 deal is untrue.

This informant claimed that the russians were attempting to bribe the Clintons.

"Claimed" they were "attempting" to bribe the Clintons. Well, has that claim been proven true?

Also, isn't that the same "informant" that lawyered-up with a known GOP nutter activist?

We also know that the Clinton Foundation did indeed get large amounts of money from players in the deal.

99% of that money came to the CF before the deal and was made by a man that not only sold out of his interests well before the deal, but was also known to have worked with Bill Clinton in the past. He was not a player in the deal.

We also now know that Bill clinton personally meant with Putin around this time, and recieved a speaking fee weeks later in of 500 thousand dollars.

What does that prove? You have to prove a lot more before that even becomes relevant.

Did Putin want something in return? Was Bill not paid to speak?

What exactly was illegal in any of that?

Then comes the Podesta Group, which is founded by the campaign chair of Hillary, and ran by her brother. See this thread.

Her brother? I think you mean John's brother. John is a man.

Also, you don't provide the context that John had not worked with the firm since he began working for Obama.

So even without looking a the Saudi/Qatar stuff, we see that any comparison or "Pattern" to any of this cannot be connected until you get your facts straight and provide full context.

Almost everything you have claimed on the U1 deal has been debunked or outright refuted and you still chug along pushing your out-of-context false equivalencies and narratives.

After you spend two weeks of #ting all over the forums, spreading falsehoods and partisan douchery, why does it surprise you that no one wants to get in the #hole you have dug, except for those that are partisan and dumb enough to pat you on your back with a handful of your own #?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


People have had plenty to say. The problem is that you don't listen and refuse to understand what you have been told.

For two weeks or so, people have been telling you how you were wrong on the U1 aspect, backed-up with proper links and sources, yet you continue to plug your ears. In fact, you've created multiple threads reusing the same bad information, false equivalencies and logical fallacies...continually doubling-down on your desire to spread that disinformation.

No you have moved goal posts and never shown anything I said was inaccurate.

Remember when you said that the threshold for if we should have an investigation was did a campaign have connections to foreign agents. Then when I showed you Hillarys did, you said no that was ok and squirmed over and over again to move goal posts.

The person/people being looked in to for bribery and such were not part of the deal making process. The bribery and no-bid contracts were made by a US contractor/subsidiary that was trying to get kickbacks for a transportation contract.

So to say they were players in the U1 deal is untrue.

Mikerin was the head of tenex, a subsidiary of rosatom. So yes, an employee of the company trying to secure the uranium in the deal was under investigation.

Just because he didnt have a seat at the table, his boss did.

Your smeantic games are meaningless.

"Claimed" they were "attempting" to bribe the Clintons. Well, has that claim been proven true?

Also, isn't that the same "informant" that lawyered-up with a known GOP nutter activist?

You are the one who didnt want his claims investigated.

And again, you just say people are right wing so we shouldnt trust them.

So I assume you wont be trusting Mullers investigation, that hired left wing lawyers?

99% of that money came to the CF before the deal and was made by a man that not only sold out of his interests well before the deal, but was also known to have worked with Bill Clinton in the past. He was not a player in the deal.

Source for 99% of the money came from him. You would be lying here would you?

Of copurse you are.

Much of the money came from him, when he thought Hillary had a chance at presidency. Millions still came in from people involved in the deal, but I guess thats ok because millions more came in before.

This makes no sense.

What does that prove? You have to prove a lot more before that even becomes relevant.

Did Putin want something in return? Was Bill not paid to speak?

What exactly was illegal in any of that?

Again, you say I lie, but none of your objections are about the facts I present. You just say it doesnt prove anything.

I am showing its a pattern. To you, its always just a coincidence.

Even still, why wouldnt you want an investigation?

Her brother? I think you mean John's brother. John is a man.

Great you found a typo. Your first success!

Also, you don't provide the context that John had not worked with the firm since he began working for Obama.

1. John Podesta founded the group with his brother.

2. Tony campaigned for a donated heavily to Hillary (no kidding its his brother campaign). he even had fund raisers at his house.

3. Hllary has personally used the Podesta group in her dealings. Remember when Bill met with a Saudi prince, and 2 weeks later the Podesta group was representing the same prince?

4. If someone on Trumps campaign, say Steve Bannon, had a brother that he funded a lobbying frim with, and that brother was representing and getting paid huge amounts of money by the Russians, are you honestly telling me you would say, "well thats just Bannons brother, he has no connection to Trump.
So even without looking a the Saudi/Qatar stuff, we see that any comparison or "Pattern" to any of this cannot be connected until you get your facts straight and provide full context.

Almost everything you have claimed on the U1 deal has been debunked or outright refuted and you still chug along pushing your out-of-context false equivalencies and narratives.

After you spend two weeks of #ting all over the forums, spreading falsehoods and partisan douchery, why does it surprise you that no one wants to get in the #hole you have dug, except for those that are partisan and dumb enough to pat you on your back with a handful of your own #?

Name calling, very classy!

You just say its been debunked. All you say is "That doesnt prove anything" but you never show anything I post is false.

If you chose to see everything outlined, and think its not a big deal, thats your call. But it makes you a hypocrite seeing as what your stance on the Trump investigation is.