jkcerda on 18/10/2017 at 15:52
(
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355749-fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-obama-administration)
Quote:
Apparently, it's Bill and Hillary Clinton who've been doing the behind-scenes and suspicious dealings with Russia all along. Oh, and perhaps others in the Barack Obama administration, too.
You think special counsel Robert Mueller might switch the target of his investigation any time soon? Seems a bit time-wasting — not to mention taxpayer dollar-wasting — to keep on the Trump trail, desperately searching for signs of a collusion that just didn't happen.
lock them up, lock them up :D
Tony_Tarantula on 18/10/2017 at 18:09
On the one hand I want to make fun of you for not being a good troll.
On the other, I looked this up elsewhere and let's say....
It doesn't look good. Initial indications aren't just bribery (which is, let's face it, more or less expected from oligarchic nations) but that the Obama admin was actively involved in covering it up. We'll see how much turns out to be true.
Inline Image:
https://media.giphy.com/media/kKPWz3TC2LBGo/giphy.gifjkcerda on 18/10/2017 at 18:22
everyone makes fun of me, hell women point & giggle when I am naked, it's cool, I am used to it.
Renzatic on 18/10/2017 at 18:34
Quote Posted by Tony_Tarantula
It doesn't look good. Initial indications aren't just bribery (which is, let's face it, more or less expected from oligarchic nations) but that the Obama admin was actively involved in covering it up. We'll see how much turns out to be true.
It's more like his DOJ sat on it, dragging their feet, and not doing anything pro or con. This isn't good, but it's not quite up to the level of a cover up.
The Clintons, on the other hand, are going to have a lot to answer for. At the very least, getting kickbacks for various speeches and massive amounts of donations to the Foundation while all this was going on, and while Clinton was a member of the board that approved the Rossatom deal doesn't look good for them.
jkcerda on 18/10/2017 at 18:44
same DOJ that met Bill Clinton to talk about "grand kids"????
Starker on 18/10/2017 at 18:56
Looks like most of these donations did not actually happen when the deal was going on:
Quote:
(
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/) http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
Of the $145 million allegedly contributed to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One investors, the lion's share — $131.3 million — came from a single donor, Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his entire stake in the company in 2007, three years before the Russia deal and at least 18 months before Clinton became secretary of state.
Of the remaining individuals connected with Uranium One who donated to the Clinton Foundation, only one was found to have contributed during the same time frame that the deal was taking place
And in any case, this in no way clears Lord Dampnut of suspicion, especially now that collusion has been proven beyond any doubt.
jkcerda on 18/10/2017 at 19:11
no one said it clears trump, but she sure as hell should be in jail, snopes is a left leaning rag BTW.
Renzatic on 18/10/2017 at 20:15
Quote Posted by Starker
And in any case, this in no way clears Lord Dampnut of suspicion, especially now that collusion has been proven beyond any doubt.
It doesn't, though the issue of collusion is still very much up in the air.
And anyone who thinks Snopes is in any way partisan is dumb. Yeah, they might not say the things a lot of people would like them to say, but overall, all they do is look up shit no one else bothers to look up when they're getting into a political internet spat, then post it up for all to see.
Hating Snopes for what Snopes does is hating citable sources because you don't like what the sources say.
jkcerda on 18/10/2017 at 20:18
snopes is pretty selective on what they "report" , hence the reason I say they are a partisan hack site.
Renzatic on 18/10/2017 at 20:18
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2418[/ATTACH]
