(11-15-2017 09:18 AM)fsquid Wrote: Of course she had some influence, but this narrative that she was the sole person responsible for the sale is laughable.
Who has ever said or even implied such a thing?
Course equally laughable is that this is ALL a, just Wow! Amazing set of coincidences.
Bubba and Canks personal buddy Pootey is looking to expand his influence over, or even corner, the market for uranium. The most experienced and engaged SOS to have ever held the office is remarkably absent from these deliberations, as it gets passed by the remaining corrupt members of the prior criminal syndicate.
Aaaaand *Pooif*
Lookey there, wouldcha?!?
150 MILLION bucks from active partners in this deal just suddenly dropped into our humble little family business. Who coulda seen that coming?!?
Other than the blind guy 3 1/2 miles away... as in everyone...
How much have these “donors” forked over since her colossal, spectacular flameout?!?
Similar numbers, I’ll presume...
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:01 AM by JMUDunk.)
(11-15-2017 10:07 AM)shere khan Wrote: So the Clinton Foundation gets eleventy billion from the Russians for charity with nothing in return
Don't be obtuse
Ok. So the Clinton Foundation disclosed all of its donors and the Clinton’s income tax returns listing their sources of income including speeches are out in the public for review.
You think the Clintons are so bold, and therefore so stupid, to be bought by the Russians and reveal the payments to the public.
Yet the Russians actively supported the candidacy of Donald Trump. Of course, we don’t know the money the President has received from Russian interests because he doesn’t disclosure the sources of his income and loan sources.
So Clinton’s are bad but they don’t hold any public office. Let’s bring them down for show because the special prosecutor has charged against Trump campaign senior officials.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:22 AM by Latilleon.)
(11-15-2017 10:07 AM)shere khan Wrote: So the Clinton Foundation gets eleventy billion from the Russians for charity with nothing in return
Don't be obtuse
Russians. What Russians?
that country democrats hate if they talk to trumps 4th cousin, but love when they want 500,000 for a speech or some millions for their "charity"
idk, it gets confusing.
I want you to show evidence that anyone you perceive as left leaning being supportive of Russia, Putin, or Russian interests because they paid for a Bill Clinton speech or donated to the Clinton Foundation.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:25 AM by Latilleon.)
(11-15-2017 10:51 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [quote='fsquid' pid='14782685' dateline='1510755496']
Of course she had some influence, but this narrative that she was the sole person responsible for the sale is laughable.
Who has ever said or even implied such a thing?
Trump did
“Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech money to Bill, the Hillary Russian ‘reset,’ praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax,”
(11-15-2017 10:51 AM)JMUDunk Wrote: [quote='fsquid' pid='14782685' dateline='1510755496']
Of course she had some influence, but this narrative that she was the sole person responsible for the sale is laughable.
Who has ever said or even implied such a thing?
Trump did
“Why isn’t the House Intelligence Committee looking into the Bill & Hillary deal that allowed big Uranium to go to Russia, Russian speech money to Bill, the Hillary Russian ‘reset,’ praise of Russia by Hillary, or Podesta Russian Company. Trump Russia story is a hoax,”
He mentioned both Bill and Hillary as well as Podesta GROUP.
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:36 AM by Dasville.)
(11-15-2017 10:07 AM)shere khan Wrote: So the Clinton Foundation gets eleventy billion from the Russians for charity with nothing in return
Don't be obtuse
Ok. So the Clinton Foundation disclosed all of its donors and the Clinton’s income tax returns listing their sources of income including speeches are out in the public for review.
You think the Clintons are so bold, and therefore so stupid, to be bought by the Russians and reveal the payments to the public.
Yet the Russians actively supported the candidacy of Donald Trump. Of course, we don’t know the money the President has received from Russian interests because he doesn’t disclosure the sources of his income and loan sources.
So Clinton’s are bad but they don’t hold any public office. Let’s bring them down for show because the special prosecutor has charged against Trump campaign senior officials.
Lol believing Shep Smith. Just stop with the Russia nonsense.
I was trying to illustrate an example of common sense.
Only a dimwit believes Trump was elected because of russia
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:38 AM by shere khan.)
(11-15-2017 09:12 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, let me get this straight, the argument is that it was a 9-0 vote among representatives several departments, that the State Department representative was not Hillary but an under secretary, and that the committee vote was only a recommendation to Obama. And we are supposed to infer from this that Hillary exercised no influence over the committee or on Obama's decision, after the Clinton Foundation received significant donations?
That's certainly one possibility. But not the only one.
Soooooo...
You don't really care about how the committee and the process worked.
You don't really care about the economics of the purchase.
You don't really care that the timeline doesn't match up.
You don't really care this conspiracy theory comes from a Breitbart hack.
You just care that the conspiracy theory is against the Clintons so it must be true.
No, I don't know whether it's true or not. And neither do you. But as far as how the committee and process worked, I do know that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
And I did not say the things that you have lyingly attributed to me with your mischaracterization of my comments. Why don't you try to argue against what I actually said, instead of building your straw man.
I know what the process was and I know Hillary Clinton did not have the decision making power to approve or veto the deal.
That is truth.
What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Guys, the accusations against HRC are risible. There's no reason for the Russians to try to influence her in this matter because they were getting approval anyway and she didn't have to do anything to move it forward. And unlike some people, HRC doesn't personally profit from her foundation.
Feel free to investigate this all day long. But just know that any investigation of her in this matter will just be seen as a politically driven ploy to distract from other investigations, where there are real questions.
This appears to be an attempt to excuse misbehavior by others by trying to create a false equivalency talking point.
(11-15-2017 09:16 AM)Latilleon Wrote: Soooooo...
You don't really care about how the committee and the process worked.
You don't really care about the economics of the purchase.
You don't really care that the timeline doesn't match up.
You don't really care this conspiracy theory comes from a Breitbart hack.
You just care that the conspiracy theory is against the Clintons so it must be true.
No, I don't know whether it's true or not. And neither do you. But as far as how the committee and process worked, I do know that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
And I did not say the things that you have lyingly attributed to me with your mischaracterization of my comments. Why don't you try to argue against what I actually said, instead of building your straw man.
I know what the process was and I know Hillary Clinton did not have the decision making power to approve or veto the deal.
That is truth.
What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Guys, the accusations against HRC are risible. There's no reason for the Russians to try to influence her in this matter because they were getting approval anyway and she didn't have to do anything to move it forward. And unlike some people, HRC doesn't personally profit from her foundation.
Feel free to investigate this all day long. But just know that any investigation of her in this matter will just be seen as a politically driven ploy to distract from other investigations, where there are real questions.
This appears to be an attempt to excuse misbehavior by others by trying to create a false equivalency talking point.
Real equivalency. I swear everybody should have to take an iq test to post here and then be sorted in 30 point groupings. The conversations would be better
(This post was last modified: 11-15-2017 11:42 AM by shere khan.)
(11-15-2017 09:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: No, I don't know whether it's true or not. And neither do you. But as far as how the committee and process worked, I do know that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
And I did not say the things that you have lyingly attributed to me with your mischaracterization of my comments. Why don't you try to argue against what I actually said, instead of building your straw man.
I know what the process was and I know Hillary Clinton did not have the decision making power to approve or veto the deal.
That is truth.
What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Guys, the accusations against HRC are risible. There's no reason for the Russians to try to influence her in this matter because they were getting approval anyway and she didn't have to do anything to move it forward. And unlike some people, HRC doesn't personally profit from her foundation.
Feel free to investigate this all day long. But just know that any investigation of her in this matter will just be seen as a politically driven ploy to distract from other investigations, where there are real questions.
This appears to be an attempt to excuse misbehavior by others by trying to create a false equivalency talking point.
Real equivalency. I swear everybody should have to take an iq test to post here and then be sorted in 30 point groupings. The conversations would be better
I like "is" vs. IQ.....I sometimes wonder if they're real myself
(11-15-2017 09:16 AM)Latilleon Wrote: Soooooo...
You don't really care about how the committee and the process worked.
You don't really care about the economics of the purchase.
You don't really care that the timeline doesn't match up.
You don't really care this conspiracy theory comes from a Breitbart hack.
You just care that the conspiracy theory is against the Clintons so it must be true.
No, I don't know whether it's true or not. And neither do you. But as far as how the committee and process worked, I do know that these things don't happen in a vacuum.
And I did not say the things that you have lyingly attributed to me with your mischaracterization of my comments. Why don't you try to argue against what I actually said, instead of building your straw man.
I know what the process was and I know Hillary Clinton did not have the decision making power to approve or veto the deal.
That is truth.
What you also know is that she was in a position to exert influence upon every person who did participate in the process, and what neither you nor I know is whether she did in fact do so.
And she didn't have to exert that influence through any overt act. Te knowledge that players in the deal had made significant contributions to the Clinton foundation could have been disseminated very easily to the participants in the process, without Hillary lifting a finger to do so.
Guys, the accusations against HRC are risible. There's no reason for the Russians to try to influence her in this matter because they were getting approval anyway and she didn't have to do anything to move it forward. And unlike some people, HRC doesn't personally profit from her foundation.
Feel free to investigate this all day long. But just know that any investigation of her in this matter will just be seen as a politically driven ploy to distract from other investigations, where there are real questions.
This appears to be an attempt to excuse misbehavior by others by trying to create a false equivalency talking point.
No comment on what you said. I just want to acknowledge your participation in this thread.
(11-15-2017 10:07 AM)shere khan Wrote: So the Clinton Foundation gets eleventy billion from the Russians for charity with nothing in return
Don't be obtuse
Ok. So the Clinton Foundation disclosed all of its donors and the Clinton’s income tax returns listing their sources of income including speeches are out in the public for review.
You think the Clintons are so bold, and therefore so stupid, to be bought by the Russians and reveal the payments to the public.
Yet the Russians actively supported the candidacy of Donald Trump. Of course, we don’t know the money the President has received from Russian interests because he doesn’t disclosure the sources of his income and loan sources.
So Clinton’s are bad but they don’t hold any public office. Let’s bring them down for show because the special prosecutor has charged against Trump campaign senior officials.
"Yet the Russians actively supported the candidacy of Donald Trump. Of course, we don’t know the money the President has received from Russian interests because he doesn’t disclosure the sources of his income and loan sources." Quote from above post.
Think about it this way. If a person knows that he (Putin) is hated in the US and supports another person that Demoncraps hate (Trump) wouldn't it be wise to support Trump in order for Killery who is chummy, chummy with first hated person (Putin) to be elected? You know, reverse psychology.
After all, it was Killery who profited by this Uranium deal in many ways. Trump had nothing to do with any shenanigans. She was Putins buddy, she was the one who profited.
(11-15-2017 10:07 AM)shere khan Wrote: So the Clinton Foundation gets eleventy billion from the Russians for charity with nothing in return
Don't be obtuse
Ok. So the Clinton Foundation disclosed all of its donors and the Clinton’s income tax returns listing their sources of income including speeches are out in the public for review.
You think the Clintons are so bold, and therefore so stupid, to be bought by the Russians and reveal the payments to the public.
Yet the Russians actively supported the candidacy of Donald Trump. Of course, we don’t know the money the President has received from Russian interests because he doesn’t disclosure the sources of his income and loan sources.
So Clinton’s are bad but they don’t hold any public office. Let’s bring them down for show because the special prosecutor has charged against Trump campaign senior officials.
"Yet the Russians actively supported the candidacy of Donald Trump. Of course, we don’t know the money the President has received from Russian interests because he doesn’t disclosure the sources of his income and loan sources." Quote from above post.
Think about it this way. If a person knows that he (Putin) is hated in the US and supports another person that Demoncraps hate (Trump) wouldn't it be wise to support Trump in order for Killery who is chummy, chummy with first hated person (Putin) to be elected? You know, reverse psychology.
After all, it was Killery who profited by this Uranium deal in many ways. Trump had nothing to do with any shenanigans. She was Putins buddy, she was the one who profited.
I'm sure Crooked Hillary welshed on some part of her deal.
(11-15-2017 10:07 AM)shere khan Wrote: So the Clinton Foundation gets eleventy billion from the Russians for charity with nothing in return
Don't be obtuse
Russians. What Russians?
Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev. They just had to wait for the flexibility.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Oh, those Russians. The ones we have to be nice to, to make America great again. I thought you were talking about the Russians that don't exist in bama Republican alternate reality. Excuse me, I'm a liberal and often easily confused. Sorry.
Lol. Shep the good little Hillary soldier. He has that purse lipped holier than thou democrat condescension down cold. No big deal. Hillary did nothing wrong. Russia, Russia, Russia. Secret Evidence soon—you’ll see......Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Lol. Shep the good little Hillary soldier. He has that purse lipped holier than thou democrat condescension down cold. No big deal. Hillary did nothing wrong. Russia, Russia, Russia. Secret Evidence soon—you’ll see......Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
shep explaining
(This post was last modified: 11-16-2017 01:01 AM by shere khan.)
Lol. Shep the good little Hillary soldier. He has that purse lipped holier than thou democrat condescension down cold. No big deal. Hillary did nothing wrong. Russia, Russia, Russia. Secret Evidence soon—you’ll see......Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Who is referring to secret evidence? At this point we know multiple members of Trumps campaign worked with people they knew to be tied to Russia, and that multiple high level members of his campaign lied about being involved or notified.
