The case for Russia collusion against the Democrats

Uranium One was a Canadian company with U.S. uranium property. No uranium was transferred to the Russians. Besides, Russia has HUGE uranium ore reserves. The play was all about Russia trying to catch a falling knife--the declining price of uranium.

Clinton? Trump should shut up and investigate. Full stop.

 

An excitable lot they are, no?

 

Just the entire holdings of Uranium One since they bought them. My oh my, how uninformed.

 

There are separate laws governing when, how and if uranium itself can be transferred. It has nothing to do with company holdings. And the biggest donor you guys talk about only USED to be part of the company in question. He wasn't anymore at the time of his donation. And you are still not comprehending how charitable foundations work. The Clintons had no personal access to that money.

 

They don't get to export the uranium without permission. It doesn't matter if they own the company. Try again.

 

With all due respect, that is naivety at it's finest. Just what is the Clinton Foundation doing these days?

The Clinton's 'charities' are nothing more than quid pro quo money laundering schemes.

“There is probable cause that the Clinton Foundation has run afoul of IRS rules regarding tax-exempt charitable organizations and has acted inconsistently with its stated purpose,” MDA Analytics alleged in its submission. “The Foundation should be investigated for all of the above-mentioned improprieties. The tax rules, codes, statutes and the rule of law should and must be applied in this case.”

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-evidence-in-2017-alleging-clinton-foundation

Scam exposed: Donations To Clinton Foundation Plummeted After Clinton Lost The Election

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/clinton-foundation-donations/

 

With all due respect, I asked you much earlier to produce any evidence that any money at all had been transferred from the Clinton Foundation to the Clintons. As I said, if they pulled a Trump (who has done this a lot with his fake "Foundation"), then they need to be investigated for it. You failed to produce it then and you have failed to produce it now. Wanting something to be true isn't the same thing as having justification for believing it is true. Good luck on this "Witch Hunt." At worse it looks like they could have "commingled activities" (according to your article) such as trips, which deserves scrutiny, but also has nothing to do with what we were talking about.

Now, if you had relevant evidence, it would come in the form of commingled FUNDS. A ton of commingled funds. And you'd still have to explain why we have no record of Clinton making the ultimate decision here (which was unanimous, by the way).

 

There is more evidence referenced in those two articles than your entire Russia Russia Russia fake news Hillary bought and paid for fake news dossier fisa warrant induced Trump witch hunt.

 

That statement is nonsensical.

The USA can stop any Russian effort to remove any product any time it wants.

Think!

 

Oh really, coming from someone who thinks the our own federal elections were hacked by the Russians...that statement is kinda full of the dumbs.

When you control a market, you don't have to move it back to your own country. Hello hello, anyone home?

 

Except none of it was the relevant info I asked for. If you had evidence that the Clintons had meetings for the express purpose of commingling funds (like the Trump campaign with Russia), that they verbally agreed to commingle funds after being given the express offer and explicitly choosing to pursue it (like the Trump campaign with Russia), that they had advanced knowledge that funds would be commingled and hid it from the public and the FBI (like the Trump campaign with Russia), that they were in direct communication with people who went around commingling funds (like the Trump campaign with Russia), etc. etc. etc., then your analogy might have some meat on its bones -- right now Gandhi has more. Also, the investigation wasn't started by the dossier, and the only guy they went after based on the dossier wasn't even part of the campaign anymore and had also been under surveillance for Russian intelligence contacts well before Trump even announced he was running for President. The people calling this a witch hunt haven't done their homework.

 

That comment lacks common sense.

The USA legal system can prevent the Russians from removing any product.

Do you understand that the product is in the US?

 

Uh, duh, I know where it's at in Texas. I can't help it if you can't comprehend world markets.

 

I cannot help it if you cannot comprehend that the product is not going anywhere and is, in effect, under US control.

Next?

 

Uh huh. "Maybe one of the guys we were claiming was a core player to collusion (Cohen) was falsely accused of collusion (obliterating the dossier) and he knows of no evidence that anyone else did.....but, trust us, it still did somehow, someway!"

ROFL. I love stomping mud holes in lefties. You people are just too dumb to realize it.

 

You may be stomping your rage in mud holes while the lefties watch you, but you are only miring yourself.

Cohen did very well in the hearing. AOC looked very good as well.

 

Actually I believe you are dumb enough to imagine it. You still haven't provided a single bit of evidence that anyone thought Cohen was a key to the collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians.

He did however testify to hearing Roger Stone tell Trump about the Wiki dump before it occured. Or did you miss that part? You do know what a speaker phone is, or do you?

And what the heck is this bit of babble trying to say: Never heard anyone claim Cohen obliterated the dossier.


Uh huh. "Maybe one of the guys we were claiming was a core player to collusion (Cohen) was falsely accused of collusion (obliterating the dossier) and he knows of no evidence that anyone else did.....but, trust us, it still did somehow, someway!"

 

Only a far righty would suggest "Cohen was a key to collusion" of the GOP "campaign and the Russians."

How silly for the far right to think that.

 

Follow the money.

“3. The State Department Signed Off on the Deal but Hillary Clinton Wasn’t Involved, Her Campaign Contended

Hillary Clinton. (Getty)
The Washington Post reports that the State Department was involved.

“The State Department was one of nine agencies comprising CFIUS, which vets potential national security impacts of transactions where a foreign government gains control of a U.S. company,” The Post wrote.
The Post noted that Clinton’s campaign said “Clinton herself was not involved in the State Department’s review and did not direct the department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One.”
However, the New York Times article, from 2015, noted, “Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

HEAVY.COM, Clinton ‘Uranium Deal’ & Russia: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know, 3/27/2017.
http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/clint...one-foundation-donations-putin-frank-giustra/

Have we no grand juries for crooked Democrats?

 

The investigations of Trump are clearly an orchestrated political Witch Hunt, but after three years and no evidence of collusion with Russia the whole thing is beginning to look more like a Snipe Hunt.

 

The opposition to Trump being investigated is a criminally organized and orchestrated obstruction of justice effort.

In less than two years, Mueller and other agencies have breached the walls and are hunting down the miscreants.

 

Ddayd, the supposed donation king was not even involved with government at the time.

Clinton's signature was not required, and State was one of nine agencies involved.

The Washington Post reports that the State Department was involved.

“The State Department was one of nine agencies comprising CFIUS, which vets potential national security impacts of transactions where a foreign government gains control of a U.S. company,” The Post wrote.

The Post noted that Clinton’s campaign said “Clinton herself was not involved in the State Department’s review and did not direct the department to take any position on the sale of Uranium One.”

. . . the New York Times article, from 2015, noted, “Shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”

That allegation has never been proven, and if it were, coincidence is not causation.

 

You're are Harvard material. Hillary got the debate questions from CNN. Is that not fraud? Obozo funded the largest sponsor of terrorism and that didn't bother you. Go back to kneeling at the throne, lib. The left are exactly cheaters, CNN/Hillary, crooks in every way and lie as if their power depends on it. If a liberal told you what they planned to do, they would never get elected. Let's see how AOC does, she seems the most honest. The day of reckoning will be bitter sweet and you will be in for a rude awakening.

 

Trump is a cheater, a crook, and a pathological liar.

He is under the media and legal microscopes.

He seems like a cockroach trying to scurry under a rock.

 

Wow. Given the critical thinking skills you have just demonstrated, coupled with your fallacious equivalencies and whataboutery, I am confident you are kindergarten material at least.

Facts can be annoying things when you are trying to defend your lying cheatin' crooked President. How many knee pads have you worn out, doing so?

Keep soothing yourself with thoughts of my rude awakening. I'm sure it eases your own unease greatly.