Exclusive: Russian Bank Docs Show How Putin Laundered Money to Hillary & Podesta

a reply to: Outlier13

Gee...documents from Russia that paint Hillary in a negative light? MUST BE LEGIT !

a reply to: DJW001

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

CNN may have broken that meme too

a reply to: khnum

Yeah man, pretty sure you're right.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Outlier13

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Outlier13

Interesting, indeed.

My main question is, why?!

What on earth would Putin have to gain from funding HRC's campaign manager?

Or is this somehow related to that Russian uranium deal?

I would expect that like the big corporations and banks, they would spread the money around.
Everyone expected Hillary Clinton would win.
The Russians would be foolish if they didn't plan for Clinton Presidency.

Valid point about the Russians hedging their bets BUT...this all occurred long before Trump declared he was running for POTUS. This particular story goes all the way back to 2009 when HRC first took the position of Sec of State.

I believe that Trump is an actual outsider that wasn't supposed to win.
Back in 2009, Hillary was expected to run and win in 2016, after she cut her deal with Obama to drop out of the race in exchange for the Secretary of State slot and grooming for 2016 by the Democratic leaders.

This........... And the Russians didn't hack the DNC...

a reply to: flice

The FBI, CIA, and 17 other IC sources say you're wrong about the Russian's hacking the DNC. There's really no debate anymore as to whether the heck took place, or not. The discussion now is all about how much of an effect it had, who coordinated it, and if the Trump campaign knew about it. But, hey, it's still a free country, (for now). Believe what you like.

This........... And the Russians didn't hack the DNC...

The bottom line is the Left still can’t come to terms with the fact that they lost yet another election. Obama might have won twice – the first time against a truly horrible candidate, the second time by a razor-thin margin, but along the way, he was a one man wrecking crew for the Democrat Party.

No Democrat president lost as many down-ballot seats, legislatures, and governorships than Barack Hussein Obama.

In 2016 the leftists not only lost the White House, but the House, the Senate, and worse for them – the Supreme Court for the next 2 or 3 decades.

Something leftists always fail to factor into their losses is the fact that they are a true minority in this country. The vast majority of Americans do not consider themselves “liberal”.

www.gallup.com...

Added to that, even many Democrat strategists and pundits out there admit that Bill Clinton’s wife – to one degree or another, was simply not a very good candidate.

So, her loss had to be someone else’s fault, right? She is the “smartest woman in the world” after all, right?

She couldn’t have lost because she was a lousy candidate. It wasn’t her history of corruption and grifting. It wasn’t her 40 years of defending and even enabling a serial sexual predator. And of course, it couldn’t be because Obama simply wasn’t a very good president who left office with no real legacy other than his scandals and failures.

That’s why the Russians had to have done it!

The problem is, there are a couple very pesky facts no one has been able to answer yet: Julian Assange said his material did NOT come from the Russians, and there’s the still-unsolved assassination of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

The crybaby logic in play here of course is that if “Russians” hacked the DNC, they must have “hacked” the election causing Bill Clinton’s wife to lose. The problem with that ludicrous claim is that if the Russians did “hack” the election, why did Bill Clinton’s wife (supposedly) win the popular vote?

I certainly don’t like the fact that a foreign nation might have interfered in a U.S. election regardless of the result and it should be dealt with accordingly. But let’s not forget the OVERT meddling the Obama Regime undertook in the last Israeli election.

I have seen enough evidence that I’m sure some 2016 election hacking did come from Russia. Was that directed by the Russian government for a specific purpose or just freelancers with their own agenda? That’s the real question as far as I’m concerned.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: xuenchen

No wonder they kept pressing the Trump/Russian thing.

So far it seems that every attack launched at Trump from DNC stooges both before and after the election have been a projection of HRC's own failures & corruptions.

It makes it really easy for me to identify the flaws of HRC and the failing left.

..a common and now well understood Clinton tactic.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DJW001

You didn't link the one that explains all of your work in here:
Is it time to make Infowars non grata?

Please read that post. It explains why you should not believe the lies Infowars publishes. Sorry if the ignorant do not understand the definition of "censorship."

Your post was clear - you want to close down the speech of those who YOU deem to be unreliable.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DJW001

You didn't link the one that explains all of your work in here:
Is it time to make Infowars non grata?

Please read that post. It explains why you should not believe the lies Infowars publishes. Sorry if the ignorant do not understand the definition of "censorship."

Your post was clear - you want to close down the speech of those who YOU deem to be unreliable.

No, I could not possibly close down the power of speech of a well funded organization with access to broadcast radio as well as the internet. I merely suggested that they have no need of ATS to air their propaganda. On the other hand, the President of the United States has power over the FCC and can potentially silence his critics. That would be censorship.

a reply to: Outlier13

Ha...this is funny. I actually figured this connection out a LONG time ago. I'll see if I can find my post all about the RUSNANO connection and HRC and Podesta with Joule. If nothing has been done about it at this point, nothing will.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Found it....here was my thread on it from a while back...October.

Thread

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Yeah, that's one of the threads I linked back on page 3 of this thread.

I remembered being impressed by the way you laid it all out and how clear the connection was.

Why are you copy pasting from Infowars, a known disinfo source.

originally posted by: Vailx
Why are you copy pasting from Infowars, a known disinfo source.

Because that is how Russia disseminates its propaganda: post it in an established fellow traveler site so that its trolls and bots can repost it on the web ad infinitum. If you then use a search engine to look for key phrases-- Hillary Clinton and Russia-- the first hundred hits will be the chosen disinformation. ATS is essentially one of those disinformation bots.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: The GUT

I believe myself to be much more objective than yourself.

You can believe anything you want. Did I say that Clinton's foundation was above suspicion? No. There is certainly reason to suspect that there were shady dealings. Clinton is not the President, Donald Trump is. If Clinton received bribes from Russian interests, it should be investigated and she should be charged, if true. That would be simple corruption. The pressing issue is: Is President Trump being manipulated by the Russian government? If he is, that is treason.

If she was bribed and manipulated when SoS, that would count as treason?

I think so.

Love the op.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

If she was bribed and manipulated when SoS, that would count as treason?

I think so.

You think wrong. She was motivated to line her pocket, not betray her country. President Trump is also attempting to line his pocket. That is also corruption. The question is whether he actively sought the aid of an enemy of the people of the United States to achieve power and betray the nation. That is certainly treason.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: burgerbuddy

If she was bribed and manipulated when SoS, that would count as treason?

I think so.

You think wrong. She was motivated to line her pocket, not betray her country. President Trump is also attempting to line his pocket. That is also corruption. The question is whether he actively sought the aid of an enemy of the people of the United States to achieve power and betray the nation. That is certainly treason.

Sure. lol.

She sold 20% of our uranium to an "enemy of the people of the United States" for her own gain?

LOL, sounds like treason to me or are you gonna try that "intent" BS on all of us here?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

She sold 20% of our uranium to an "enemy of the people of the United States" for her own gain?

At the time she did it, we were trying to "reset" our relations with Russia. They were not considered an enemy back then. Turned out they really were all along. If the President hasn't learned from this the country is in deep trouble.

LOL, sounds like treason to me or are you gonna try that "intent" BS on all of us here?

No, I'm simply going to point out that you should change your status from "The Resistance" to "The Establishment."

a reply to: burgerbuddy

This is a older piece and a good read for context .

The BBC story lists many of the alleged connections in between the Russian president, and Trump’s network. Predictably, there is no mention of Hillary Clinton’s ties to the anti-Russia mob. A Putin-Trump hating reporter Josh Marshall is even sourced, for his condemnation of the alleged Trump-Putin connections. Looking at Marshall’s evidence I find a 2008 statement found on press release dump site eTurbonews, of a 2008 statement by Donald Jr. at a real estate conference back then. ”Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” Predictably (again) this is being parroted all over the internet today. What is also predictable in these reports are the missing pieces of context. The statement mainstream media is harping on today was made at a time when every real estate developer worth a nickel was looking at emerging markets, and in particular Russia.

Donald Trump Jr. stated: “The emerging world in general attributes such brand premium to real estate that we are looking all over the place, primarily Russia. There are countries that have not been fully tapped by us such as Thailand, Vietnam and Argentina. We are currently looking at potential deals. Our interest is really everywhere because there is a lot of new money in the emerging markets which appeal to certain brands whether ego-driven or having the life-jacket effect that we feel gives added-value to our investment.”

Today’s reports do not reflect the younger Trumps concerned, nor do they tell us of his candidness about doing business in Russia. The snipped taken out of context is what matters. 2008-2009 was an eventful investing time in Russia, let’s remember. Nat Rothschild and legendary American hedge fund billionaire John Paulson bought into Russian aluminum company Rusal, but no one has accused them of collusion with Putin. George Soros’s Quantum Fund reportedly lost over $2 billion on hedging the ruble and other Russian investments, but no one has accused Soros of being buddy-buddy with Putin or Dmitry Medvedev (who was president at the time).

I could go on-and-on, but my point is well made already. “Predictably”, assertions against Donald Trump the presidential candidate lead inextricably to Hillary too. The current story covers the fact that the Clinton Foundation was involved in the “Uranium” scandal during 2009. Yes, while Donald Trump “investments” were seeing some Russian cash flowing in, the Secretary of State was benefitting from selling off the United States’ strategic uranium reserves to Russia. Amazingly, nobody has suggested Bill and Hillary Clinton are controlled by Mr. Putin journal-neo.org...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The election is over. Donald Trump won, Hillary Clinton lost. Clinton can do no further harm to the country. Trump can. Please focus on what is important.