FBI informant blocked from telling Congress about Russia nuclear corruption case

a reply to: Grambler

Nice thread. It seems that the stew is starting to simmer.

I get the impression that Sessions may get involved in the Comey issue soon. He seemed to hint at that.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Gryphon66


it reeks of desperation doesn't it? it's funny.

Desperation? Nah. I've lost considerable faith in many people. I have a different take than most: to me, if it fits with your own personal beliefs and standards, partisanship is fine. Sure, the current false dichotomy of "right vs. left" is 99.99% BS, and I don't think our current two-party system is the best or fairest way, but I'm a big believer in our Constitutional right to assemble and associate as we choose.

My problem is that neither the Republican or Democratic platform DOES conform to my personal beliefs and standards, and haven't. For years.

This divide isn't going away anytime soon though. There's too much money in it.

So this man is going to testify in Congress. Popcorns ready.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Funny you are being sarcastic saying let's investigate everything.

Yet you werent when it came to investigating trump.

Its very simple, if the criteria for investigating trump was because the Russia situation is so aweiius that we need to look into his associates connections to russia, why wouldn't the same apply to Hillary?

Unlike with trump, we have evidence of Hillary herself taking millions of dollars from russians, and also voting favorably for Russia on this deal.

Now we have evidence that the Obama admin knew of criminality going on with people involved with the deal, including bribery, yet allowed it to go through anyways.

We now have an informant that the chi has admitted was intstrumental in finding that criminality out saying he has evidence that wasn't shared about more bribery.

Yet you think it's a wicth hunt or something to allow I'm to testify before Congress.

You and others can feign all of the outrage you want, you are being exposed.

You don't care about Russian meddling, otherwise you would take it seriously no matter which party was involved.

Also, explain to me why a NDA should mean a person can't talk to Congress?

a reply to: Grambler

... but I'm not begun merely sarcastic - perhaps a bit hyperbolic at best.

I suggest again that you stop pretending to be a mind-reader.

I'm accepting, slowly, that the world is not the way it should be or has been.

We are totally consumed as a culture in the virtual world created by the media and entertainment industries (and those are very close to merging completely.)

Is Trump himself being investigated? I still don't know that for sure, do you? Members of his Campaign certainly are being and obviously should be as they have continually lied about their connections/collusion with Russian agents.

If they looked at him for obstruction of justice, they'd probably have a case, but I'm not even sure they're doing that.

At one point I thought that Trump would be brought down due to past money laundering that he and the Trump Organization have been involved in. That may catch a few of the smaller fish but probably won't touch Trump. I was wrong on that score in my estimations.

What are you going to investigate Hillary for? Was she colluding with a foreign power to influence the 2016 election?

You and others want to dredge up every fringe theory ever concocted and investigate Clinton, etc. for that. I watched it with Benghazi, I watched it with the emails ... and all I see is a waste of the taxpayer's dime and Congresses time.

You don't have any evidence of Hillary herself taking millions from anyone. You continue to conflate that issue; it's a false claim.

According to your own sources here in this thread, the FBI was conducting a COVERT criminal investigation into individuals that turned out to be loosely related to Rosatom. There's zero evidence that anyone on the CFIUS committee was privy to that information, or that if they had been, that would or should have affected the approval of the merger in any way. I've already explained multiple times with mounds of evidence that the Uranium One brouhaha is nothing more than a RW media obsession and perhaps a bit of political Viagra for Chuck Grassley's fading career. (Did you know he's 83? Wow.)

I'll say it again. I hope the DOJ lifts the NDA on this character and he gets all the air time he could ever want.

As to your explanation, take it up with your source- it's their comment that the "covert operative" in question can't talk to Congress (then or now) because of the NDA; their claim, not mine.

I found this link to a 2015 article interesting/informative.

Judi cial Watch Sues Treasury for Records on Hillary Clinton-Russian Uranium Scandal

Judicial Watch is investigating a controversial 2010 deal involving Uranium One, the Canadian company currently at the center of the Clinton Foundation donor scandals and ARMZ, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency, which recently took a 51 percent controlling interest in Uranium One. The lawsuit seeks information about the approval of this deal and whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ignored the mandatory 75-day review approval process, approving the deal in just 52 days. Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of State, was a member of CFIUS.

Bold is mine.

As Secretary of State, Hillary was a member of CFIUS?

So Hillary sat on the committee tasked with investigating/approving her deal. How sweet is that, no conflict there

a reply to: Morningglory

Clinton didn't sit on the CFIUS. Her Assistant Secretary did.

Does the fact that JW has moved on to other things suggest to you they found nothing?

I mean, has JW ever neglected to spew anything vaguely anti-Clinton across the RW Echo Chamber?

If you're interested in the facts of the Uranium One deal, the Wiki page is not a bad summary with sources.

a reply to: Grambler

There's no integrity whatsoever left in this Government. None.

And say good bye to the "rule of law"; its been hopelessly compromised!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

Triggered?

Indeed I am triggered in the absolute truest sense of the term.

I'm appalled that the state of "journalism" in this country allows an article like the OP's tripe to reach our airwaves and screens.

I'm disgusted that multiple threads can be started based on nothing more than another rehashing of the same screed.

I'm incensed that complete fabrications that have been demonstrated as such with hard evidence still get passed along as the same mummers chant the same feculent nonsense.

Damn right I'm triggered.

Is your disgust at such media stories being repeated on ATS a new thing?
You seem to have been a very willing participant in every single one of the hundreds of threads about Trump colluding with Russia despite no evidence ever being provided. You've delighted in the innuendo, assumption and accusations.

There is a witness who claims to have evidence in the Uranium One deal and he's under a gag order to stop him spilling the beans. We're closer to real collusion being shown that we ever have been with Trump, so why are you triggered now by partisanship?

If you are coming to terms with the idea that the media is full of sh** and only seeks to confuse (at best) and mislead (at worst) then great. I applaud that.

a reply to: Morningglory

What on earth? It was literally her job to sit on that committee, that's what the secretary of state does, although apparently she delegated to the assistant secretary.

And what do you mean, "her deal"? People seem to think either Obama or Hillary had ownership of Uranium One, they didn't. The government just had to approve or block the deal. The real issue here is that her foundation and her husband received money from various persons loosely associated with the Russian company.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

Once again Grambler a great post, and a thread propagating the expected responses...

S & F for this post.

I believe it did deserve it's own thread too, good choice I reckon.

So far, and in many threads here at ATS, I see a perceived, or real in some cases... left/right thing going on.
I guess it is to be expected. The two party system has evolved and is also called "Divide and Conquer". (My opinion only folks)

Throughout many of these recent scandals, people seem to not notice there is a core group of those in power who really don't hold a loyalty to the USA anymore. They are pushing a globalist, new world order agenda along. Their only loyalty is to their pocketbooks and bank accounts. And they "play" the two major political persuasions against one another. Sad, but oh so effective and successful historically.

It is a fascinating thing to see how it is all evolving worldwide. Too bad it is so serious and isn't "just a movie".

Another poster mentions if the truth were known, it would be bi-partisan... Hello McFly moment, Duh, no doubt, right? You bet, the swamp is dark & deep, and accepts all who choose to live the swamp lifestyle.

Another says how it all would fall apart like a house of cards.... and I am betting that person is 100% correct too on that point. There is a very serious disease of corruption established in Wash D.C. for a long time.

I am also betting this Uranium One/Clinton Foundation scandal is closely tied to Oregon Maher Refuge, "Oregon Siege" Bundy family scandals, and Levoy Finicum death.

I am pretty darn sure, the land involved, and land that was trying to be taken away from some of these ranchers was to be some of the leased lands for mining that Russians/HRC etc had set up with Uranium One.

And I maintain, the amazing scandal of the trial those people are going through, and how poorly they are being treated etc., ties into this Uranium One scandal. Because of the threat of the whole house of cards falling apart on the bad guys. A lot of these scandals are tied together I believe.

The responsibility lies with these committees and commissions, and investigative probes to be upright and honest, and pursue the bad guys to the finish line. Jail.

That is the scary part. Even if this man gets to testify... I am concerned his truth's however incriminating for members of both parties; will again amount to no action to stop the corruption. I am only speaking from disappointing history when it comes to these kind of scandals.

Yet I still cling to the hope that I am wrong, and things will get fixed, and some of these political monsters will finally pay for their crimes.

Good work Grambler, keep it up.

Pravdaseeker




a reply to: Grambler

a reply to: UKTruth

Always glad to hear from a fan ... but seriously NOBODY cares what your estimation of me is. Least of all me.

The former "covert operative" isn't under a gag order ... they are under a NDA, as all "covert operatives" are.

DOJ can waive it anytime. This is nothing more than another set-up for imponderable political theatre.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Always glad to hear from a fan ... but seriously NOBODY cares what your estimation of me is. Least of all me.

The former "covert operative" isn't under a gag order ... they are under a NDA, as all "covert operatives" are.

DOJ can waive it anytime. This is nothing more than another set-up for imponderable political theatre.

Oh you may not care but many people care that liars and thieves are exposed, no matter their party affiliation. For you fail to care whether a crime is committed until you think a conservative or Trumpie is the potentially guilty party. Souring your own agenda.......

a reply to: Grambler

Gives a whole new meaning to, We do not negotiate with terrorists, security of the nation, sort of Benedict Arnold-ish to me.

a reply to: TheBorg

All due respect, I'm not sure you understand the matter better than the individuals who were actually involved in the situation. You're making a statement of what ... opinion? Supposition? Yes, the Secretary of State is responsible for the actions of the Assistant Secretary of State. Bravo.

Do you have CFIUS or State Department experience? For the record, neither do I but I have cited the direct quotes of those who do, and those people have stated directly that Mrs. Clinton was not directly involved in the decision.

You just said that State is one of ten Departments with a seat on CFIUS. Assuming you were correct about Mrs. Clinton's position on the Committee for a moment, surely you do realize that at best she was one of ten votes, not the deciding factor ... CFIUS recommendation could be overruled by the President, but barring that, the Cabinet level Departments and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission comprise CFIUS and all signed off on the merger.

By the way, I'm sure you know that the mines in question ALREADY belonged to a Canadian Company, right?

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Always glad to hear from a fan ... but seriously NOBODY cares what your estimation of me is. Least of all me.

The former "covert operative" isn't under a gag order ... they are under a NDA, as all "covert operatives" are.

DOJ can waive it anytime. This is nothing more than another set-up for imponderable political theatre.

Oh you may not care but many people care that liars and thieves are exposed, no matter their party affiliation. For you fail to care whether a crime is committed until you think a conservative or Trumpie is the potentially guilty party. Souring your own agenda.......

I don't care about another user's incessant statements of their opinions about ME as I am not and never have been the topic.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Always glad to hear from a fan ... but seriously NOBODY cares what your estimation of me is. Least of all me.

The former "covert operative" isn't under a gag order ... they are under a NDA, as all "covert operatives" are.

DOJ can waive it anytime. This is nothing more than another set-up for imponderable political theatre.

Oh you may not care but many people care that liars and thieves are exposed, no matter their party affiliation. For you fail to care whether a crime is committed until you think a conservative or Trumpie is the potentially guilty party. Souring your own agenda.......

I don't care about another user's incessant statements of their opinions about ME as I am not and never have been the topic.

I didn't say you were the topic at all. I did state your agenda was the problem and you are souring it with your diatribes of an apparent brainwashed mindset.
Thanks for helping me be able to understand the ones like you I meet on occasion. It helps to understand the level of crazy the left has made. Just stupid attempts at showing, conservatives, moderates and logical thinkers as tyrants to make political points. Yet, never seeing reality when it is biting them in the ass in public.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Always glad to hear from a fan ... but seriously NOBODY cares what your estimation of me is. Least of all me.

The former "covert operative" isn't under a gag order ... they are under a NDA, as all "covert operatives" are.

DOJ can waive it anytime. This is nothing more than another set-up for imponderable political theatre.

Oh you may not care but many people care that liars and thieves are exposed, no matter their party affiliation. For you fail to care whether a crime is committed until you think a conservative or Trumpie is the potentially guilty party. Souring your own agenda.......

I don't care about another user's incessant statements of their opinions about ME as I am not and never have been the topic.

I didn't say you were the topic at all. I did state your agenda was the problem and you are souring it with your diatribes of an apparent brainwashed mindset.
Thanks for helping me be able to understand the ones like you I meet on occasion. It helps to understand the level of crazy the left has made. Just stupid attempts at showing, conservatives, moderates and logical thinkers as tyrants to make political points. Yet, never seeing reality when it is biting them in the ass in public.

You responded to my comment to another poster, and continued the personal analysis. I don't care what you think about me, my mindset, or my "agenda" either. If you have something to say about statements of fact or opinions I have made, have at it.

Trust me, my estimation of your abilities and those of others expressing similar nonsensical malarky are much lower than yours of me and mine. However, that's irrelevant and off-topic.

You want to talk about others as individuals when you can't support your position in a discussion. It's referred to as the fallacy of ad hominem.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheBorg

All due respect, I'm not sure you understand the matter better than the individuals who were actually involved in the situation. You're making a statement of what ... opinion? Supposition? Yes, the Secretary of State is responsible for the actions of the Assistant Secretary of State. Bravo.

Do you have CFIUS or State Department experience? For the record, neither do I but I have cited the direct quotes of those who do, and those people have stated directly that Mrs. Clinton was not directly involved in the decision.

You just said that State is one of ten Departments with a seat on CFIUS. Assuming you were correct about Mrs. Clinton's position on the Committee for a moment, surely you do realize that at best she was one of ten votes, not the deciding factor ... CFIUS recommendation could be overruled by the President, but barring that, the Cabinet level Departments and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission comprise CFIUS and all signed off on the merger.

By the way, I'm sure you know that the mines in question ALREADY belonged to a Canadian Company, right?

As we established on the other thread, as a result of this US uranium is being sent overseas.

And just because Hillary was only one vote, what does that matter? So its not worth looking into because she onlyt was one vote?

Of course you are right that higher ups such as Obama ultimately could have overruled. All the more curious that he too let this slide knowing the criminality involved.

Again, you can twist all you want.

Trumps associates connections with Russian agents was claimed to be af a paraamojunt issue to investigate because Russia is so bad they could be overthroiwing our country.

Yet somehow when we have knwon criminals bribing and etorting people, and people from the same company or involved in the same deal of his for the sale of uraniiumk are giving millions of dollars to the clinton foundation, you somehow see no problem with this.

Its ridiculous.