The Real Russian Scandal

Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

That’s the “deal” that Donald Trump referenced in a tweet Tuesday morning in which he essentially said that if Congress really wants to find evidence of U.S. politicians colluding with the Russians, it should investigate the $145 million in donations the Clintons’ received from uranium investors before Russia’s energy agency Rostatom secured the purchase of Uranium One.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/russia-scandal-inside-the-obama-clinton-uranium-deal/​
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Jerry Shugart said:
Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

That’s the “deal” that Donald Trump referenced in a tweet Tuesday morning in which he essentially said that if Congress really wants to find evidence of U.S. politicians colluding with the Russians, it should investigate the $145 million in donations the Clintons’ received from uranium investors before Russia’s energy agency Rostatom secured the purchase of Uranium One.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/russia-scandal-inside-the-obama-clinton-uranium-deal/​
Click to expand...
I noted this in two other thread but the Trump haters ignored it, jut like the MSM. Robert Mueller was head of the FBI at the time. :think:
 
R

rexlunae

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
Tens of millions of dollars from uranium investors flowed into the Clinton Foundation, and Bill Clinton received a $500,000 speaking fee from a Russian bank tied to the Kremlin before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton helped decide whether to approve the sale to the Russian government of a company that held one-fifth of America’s uranium capacity.

That’s the “deal” that Donald Trump referenced in a tweet Tuesday morning in which he essentially said that if Congress really wants to find evidence of U.S. politicians colluding with the Russians, it should investigate the $145 million in donations the Clintons’ received from uranium investors before Russia’s energy agency Rostatom secured the purchase of Uranium One.
Click to expand...

Here's the problem with using the Clinton Foundation as an avenue of corruption: The Clinton Foundation is a public charity. Which means it's books are open, it is subject to regular mandatory audits, and the owners do not take earnings from it. If, somehow, the money from such activities enriched the Clintons, there would have to be a paper trail, and an explanation. And the Clinton Foundation is always been scored very well by Charity Watch.

https://www.charitywatch.org/analysts-notes/clinton-foundation/478

It is possible that money was given with corrupt intent, perhaps not understanding the nature of the organization. It is also possible that such money was received without understanding the intent of the gift. But keep in mind that Hillary wouldn't have been involved at the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State, and she likely wouldn't have given much information to either her husband or Chelsea about her job because of the secrecy required. So, you may have enough for an investigation, but it's not enough even to suggest guilt on the part of any of the Clintons at this point.

Jerry Shugart said:
http://www.wnd.com/2017/03/russia-scandal-inside-the-obama-clinton-uranium-deal/
Click to expand...

Ah, good, the very site that ran page after page of Birther dreck under the Obama Administration. I wondered what they were up to now.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
rexlunae said:
Here's the problem with using the Clinton Foundation as an avenue of corruption: The Clinton Foundation is a public charity. Which means it's books are open, it is subject to regular mandatory audits, and the owners do not take earnings from it. If, somehow, the money from such activities enriched the Clintons, there would have to be a paper trail, and an explanation. And the Clinton Foundation is always been scored very well by Charity Watch.

https://www.charitywatch.org/analysts-notes/clinton-foundation/478

It is possible that money was given with corrupt intent, perhaps not understanding the nature of the organization. It is also possible that such money was received without understanding the intent of the gift. But keep in mind that Hillary wouldn't have been involved at the Clinton Foundation while she was secretary of State, and she likely wouldn't have given much information to either her husband or Chelsea about her job because of the secrecy required. So, you may have enough for an investigation, but it's not enough even to suggest guilt on the part of any of the Clintons at this point.



Ah, good, the very site that ran page after page of Birther dreck under the Obama Administration. I wondered what they were up to now.
Click to expand...
Bury your head in the sand rex, nothing to see here.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
So, I was watching Outnumbered Overtime, and a point that was mentioned got me thinking. There were nine cabinet agencies that approved this deal. Nine. So why is it that all we hear about it from the Right is excitement over the chance to get Hillary Clinton in trouble again? There are eight other cabinet secretaries who could just as easily be suspected, and State isn't even the one with the most direct concerns. Why isn't it Leon Panetta in the cross-hairs?

Kinda exposes the partisan nature of the concerns, doesn't it?
 
R

rexlunae

New member
patrick jane said:
It's not true so yeah.
Click to expand...

You're not going to be a little disappointed if Clinton comes out clean, again?

patrick jane said:
You're perfectly fine with the biased media.
Click to expand...

No one is unbiased, and bias doesn't have to be untruthful. So I'd rather media outlets be as transparent as possible about their conscious biases at least and then be truthful. Some outlets, however, consistently fail at the later.

patrick jane said:
Wait till Jerry gets back to take you to school.
Click to expand...

Be sure to hold your breath.
 
J

jgarden

BANNED
Banned
WND has repeatedly publicized conspiracy theories expressing doubts about President Barack Obama's U.S. citizenship, for which it has gained notoriety. It says that Obama is not a natural-born US citizen and thus is not eligible to serve as president. After the 2008 presidential campaign, WND began an online petition to have Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate released to the public. The website also unsuccessfully urged Supreme Court justices to hear several lawsuits aiming to release Obama's birth certificate. The White House released copies of the president's original long-form birth certificate on April 27, 2011. After the long-form birth certificate was released, WND continued to promote its conspiracy theory, publishing an article questioning the certificate's authenticity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorldNetDaily
Click to expand...

AAsNgbS.img


The Real Russian Scandal

The source for this thread is none other than the WorldNetDaily.com, an ultra-conservative website that spend 5 years promoting the fake news "birther" narrative!

This is all part of the conservative effort to deflect attention away from tnvestigating the President's Russian connections, while feeding "red meat" to the Trump faithful!
 
Last edited:
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
jgarden said:
The Real Russian Scandal



The source for this thread is none other than the WorldNetDaily.com, an ultra-conservative website that spend 5 years promoting the fake news "birther" narrative!

This is all part of the conservative effort to deflect attention away from tnvestigating the President's Russian connections, while feeding "red meat" to the Trump faithful!
Click to expand...
You are literally blind to what's happening, aren't you?


This video shows that two new investigations were opened today - wake up jgarb

 
Ktoyou

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
It is total baloney! :mad:

:listen: Believe me, my fellow Americans, I have never been in any Cosa Nostra, or have ever been a KGB operative and the CIA and all these Washington insiders are all rabid liars.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
patrick jane said:
You are literally blind to what's happening, aren't you?


This video shows that two new investigations were opened today - wake up jgarb

Click to expand...

The only thing notable about this is how poorly Tucker does fake outrage, and how obviously contrived this whole thing is. He and Brit Hume expound at length about how shocking it is that no one else has come across this informations. Really? Tucker just finished explaining to us that they got it from a single source who was a former senior employee of the Podesta Group. If he's the sole source for this information, it shouldn't surprise anyone anyone that no one else found it. In fact, isn't it a little odd that the only network to uncover it also happens to be the one network that's been trying as hard as they can to ignore and minimize and divert attention from the story? And indeed, whereas on the rare occasion that other news outlets have relied on single-sourced information, they have typically been very clear to qualify it as extremely uncertain. Tucker, on the contrary, mentions the single source, but does not call attention to the uncertainty of an unconfirmed story, and in fact, acts as if it's shocking that no one else found it. What Tucker really just did is confess to a much lower journalistic standard than the industry standard, at least when it suits his partisan allegiance.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
rexlunae said:
The only thing notable about this is how poorly Tucker does fake outrage, and how obviously contrived this whole thing is. He and Brit Hume expound at length about how shocking it is that no one else has come across this informations. Really? Tucker just finished explaining to us that they got it from a single source who was a former senior employee of the Podesta Group. If he's the sole source for this information, it shouldn't surprise anyone anyone that no one else found it. In fact, isn't it a little odd that the only network to uncover it also happens to be the one network that's been trying as hard as they can to ignore and minimize and divert attention from the story? And indeed, whereas on the rare occasion that other news outlets have relied on single-sourced information, they have typically been very clear to qualify it as extremely uncertain. Tucker, on the contrary, mentions the single source, but does not call attention to the uncertainty of an unconfirmed story, and in fact, acts as if it's shocking that no one else found it. What Tucker really just did is confess to a much lower journalistic standard than the industry standard, at least when it suits his partisan allegiance.
Click to expand...
I know, I know, your sources are better, fairer and more accurate. I guess we're about to find out, rex.
 
R

rexlunae

New member
patrick jane said:
I know, I know, your sources are better, fairer and more accurate.
Click to expand...

...Plural...willing to talk to someone who isn't Tucker Carlson...

This is Seth Rich all over again. Fox News tries to concoct a bogus story to feed to their viewers for their political convenience. There's a reason that non-journalist Tucker Carlson is the one who's pushing this. Let me know when Shep Smith is talking about it.


patrick jane said:
I guess we're about to find out, rex.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's hardly a push. We've got the full house, you've just got the deuce.
 
patrick jane

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
rexlunae said:
...Plural...willing to talk to someone who isn't Tucker Carlson...

This is Seth Rich all over again. Fox News tries to concoct a bogus story to feed to their viewers for their political convenience. There's a reason that non-journalist Tucker Carlson is the one who's pushing this. Let me know when Shep Smith is talking about it.




Yeah, but it's hardly a push. We've got the full house, you've just got the deuce.
Click to expand...
Four of 'em and deuces are Wild
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top