Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-17-2017, 12:29 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Talking about collusion with Russians...

http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...administration

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
...
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
...
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
...
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
...
Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”
  #2  
Old 10-17-2017, 12:45 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,763
No U!!!!1!
  #3  
Old 10-17-2017, 12:51 PM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,989
There is no evidence so substantive that some people will not dismiss it, nor no evidence so spurious that some will not openly embrace it, to the extent that it suits their political biases.
  #4  
Old 10-17-2017, 01:08 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 35,038
Sean Hannity has been on this story for months, but since Hillary lost, it appears to be old news.

Regards,
Shodan
  #5  
Old 10-17-2017, 01:10 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Robert Mueller was the FBI director during that time frame. Maybe he can come out and explain it.
  #6  
Old 10-17-2017, 01:15 PM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,989
Yeah, about that uranium deal...

Quote:
The timing of most of the donations does not match

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, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:


His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.
  #7  
Old 10-17-2017, 01:44 PM
BobLibDem BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 19,271
Snopes laid this to rest long ago.

Clinton did not have veto power over the deal, only the president can do it. In any event, not one ounce of uranium left the US, since the company involved did not have an export license.
  #8  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:15 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...uclear-bribery

Senate Judiciary opens probe into Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery case
  #9  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:28 AM
enalzi enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,498
Do you actually have anything to say about this or are you going to keep posting links?
  #10  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:33 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...uclear-bribery

Senate Judiciary opens probe into Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery case
Finally gave up on Benghazi?
  #11  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:36 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Do you actually have anything to say about this or are you going to keep posting links?
Seems like there is a lot of stuff to investigate. Hiding pertinent FBI investigations from the Congressional oversight committees in order to push the Russian deal through... You (plural) would be screaming and howling if Trump admin was doing that, wouldn't you?
  #12  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:39 AM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,343
I figure the GOP Daily talking points must be distributed fairly early, eh.
  #13  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:42 AM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Seems like there is a lot of stuff to investigate. Hiding pertinent FBI investigations from the Congressional oversight committees in order to push the Russian deal through... You (plural) would be screaming and howling if Trump admin was doing that, wouldn't you?
Thus far, none of your characterizations nor predictions of liberal behavior have ever been shown to be even remotely accurate or reliable.
  #14  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:47 AM
enalzi enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 6,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Seems like there is a lot of stuff to investigate. Hiding pertinent FBI investigations from the Congressional oversight committees in order to push the Russian deal through... You (plural) would be screaming and howling if Trump admin was doing that, wouldn't you?
Okay, so you don't actually care, it's just whataboutism then?
  #15  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:57 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 43,485
Yes, if the facts were the opposite of what they are, you'd be right.
  #16  
Old 10-18-2017, 11:58 AM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,704
Ooh look! Dull!
  #17  
Old 10-19-2017, 04:38 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 19,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Seems like there is a lot of stuff to investigate.
Like Benghazi? Or the IRS thing? Yes, there was massive amount of stuff to investigate there. And look at all the stuff they found! Boxes and boxes of...nothing. And Whitewater! Years and millions of dollars devoted to an Arkansas land deal and they found a blowjob! Taxpayer money well-spent!

Quote:
Hiding pertinent FBI investigations from the Congressional oversight committees in order to push the Russian deal through... You (plural) would be screaming and howling if Trump admin was doing that, wouldn't you?
Sorry - is your argument "Democrats must be lying hypocrites because Republicans are"?
  #18  
Old 10-19-2017, 08:47 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Seems like there is a lot of stuff to investigate. Hiding pertinent FBI investigations from the Congressional oversight committees in order to push the Russian deal through...
Do you believe that the FBI routinely discloses ongoing criminal investigations to congressional committees? Why do you think that an investigation into a bribery case would be reported to the House Intelligence Committee? What do you think the jurisdiction of the House Intelligence Committee is, anyway?
  #19  
Old 10-19-2017, 09:00 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Do you believe that the FBI routinely discloses ongoing criminal investigations to congressional committees? Why do you think that an investigation into a bribery case would be reported to the House Intelligence Committee? What do you think the jurisdiction of the House Intelligence Committee is, anyway?
Routinely - no. When they affect national security and are relevant to the national security decisions being taken at the time - yes. And not just House Intelligence Committee. All other committees too that were involved in the decision. Like Senate Judiciary Committee - http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...uclear-bribery
  #20  
Old 10-19-2017, 09:09 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
And more developments:

https://www.circa.com/story/2017/10/...ut-uranium-one

In a formal letter, Grassley, an Iowa Republican, asked Victoria Toensing, the lawyer representing the former FBI informant, to allow her client, who says he worked as a voluntary informant for the FBI, to be allowed to testify about the "crucial" eyewitness testimony he provided to the FBI regarding members of the Russian subsidiary and other connected players from 2009 until the FBI's prosecution of the defendants in 2014.
...
Toensing's client was an American businessman who says he worked for four years undercover as an FBI confidential witness. Toensing said he was blocked by the Obama Justice Department, under then Attorney General Loretta Lynch, about testifying to Congress about his time as an informant for the FBI.
...
"Reporting indicates that “the informant’s work was crucial to the government’s ability to crack a multimillion dollar racketeering scheme by Russian nuclear officials on U.S. soil” and that the scheme involved “bribery, kickbacks, money laundering, and extortion," Grassley states in his letter. "Further, the reporting indicates that your client can testify that 'FBI agents made comments to him suggesting political pressure was exerted during the Justice Department probe' and 'that there was specific evidence that could have scuttled approval of the Uranium One deal.' It appears that your client possesses unique information about the Uranium One/Rosatom transaction and how the Justice Department handled the criminal investigation into the Russian criminal conspiracy."

Grassley added that "such information is critical to the Committee’s oversight of the Justice Department and its ongoing inquiry into the manner in which CFIUS approved the transaction. Accordingly, the Committee requests to interview your client."
  #21  
Old 10-19-2017, 10:16 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 21,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Routinely - no. When they affect national security and are relevant to the national security decisions being taken at the time - yes.
What is your evidence for the FBI disclosing criminal investigations to congressional committees "when they affect national security" or "are relevant to the national security decisions being taken at the time?" Your link doesn't support that statement.
  #22  
Old 10-19-2017, 11:32 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
And more developments:
Rachel Maddow discusses two real scandals. Comments, Okrahoma ?
  #23  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:29 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Rachel Maddow discusses two real scandals. Comments, Okrahoma ?
Your first link doesn't contain much information at all; just FYI.
  #24  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:40 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Rachel Maddow discusses two real scandals. Comments, Okrahoma ?
Quick, try to distract with two completely unrelated (and one removed) youtube videos!
  #25  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:49 PM
shunpiker shunpiker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Central North Carolina
Posts: 1,308
2010...? Yyaaaaaaaawn.
  #26  
Old 10-19-2017, 01:54 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Quick, try to distract with two completely unrelated (and one removed) youtube videos!
This is especially funny because the whole point of trying to get people talking about Hillary and uranium is to distract people from other stuff, like Trump's failure in Puerto Rico or his failure in a phone call or the GOP's failure to pass any significant legislation despite controlling the House and Senate and having a GOP POTUS, etc., etc.

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 10-19-2017 at 01:54 PM.
  #27  
Old 10-19-2017, 02:07 PM
garygnu garygnu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 11,042
Looks like 45* realized he's losing the NFL tantrum-throwing twaddle, needed a new distraction.
__________________
°o°
  #28  
Old 10-19-2017, 03:08 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Quick, try to distract with two completely unrelated (and one removed) youtube videos!
[Bricker]
That's how it's done.
[/Bricker]
  #29  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:44 AM
septimus septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 14,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Your first link doesn't contain much information at all; just FYI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Quick, try to distract with two completely unrelated (and one removed) youtube videos!
Ouch! Was it the first link that said 'Removed'? The 2nd link still clicks to my intended.

My hypothesis is that the RACHEL MADDOW NEWS decided to reuse that URL, first passing through a 'Removed' state on its way to a short clip unrelated to my original.

But you did click, Okrahoma ! If I hunt down the intended Rachel Maddow show, would you watch it?

Let me ask you the same question I'm asking other Trumpists: On the topic of collusion between Putin and U.S. election campaigns, what's your best guess as to the bigger offender? Trump's campaign or Hillary's? IOW, is your argument "You're side does it too" or "Hillary is the criminal; charges against Dear Leader are #FakeNews" ?
  #30  
Old 10-20-2017, 07:50 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
But you did click, Okrahoma ! If I hunt down the intended Rachel Maddow show, would you watch it?
No. Would you listen to Rush Limbaugh?
Quote:
Let me ask you the same question I'm asking other Trumpists: On the topic of collusion between Putin and U.S. election campaigns, what's your best guess as to the bigger offender? Trump's campaign or Hillary's? IOW, is your argument "You're side does it too" or "Hillary is the criminal; charges against Dear Leader are #FakeNews" ?
I don't think there was any collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia - it's all fantasies of people who are baffled that Trump won.

I don't think there was any collusion between Hillary's campaign and Russia.

I do think Russians greased the wheels in the uranium deal a bit by funneling money to Hillary. TheHill's article in fact says so explicitly. As in: "Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill"

Hope this clarifies matters for you.

Last edited by Okrahoma; 10-20-2017 at 07:51 AM.
  #31  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:39 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
No. Would you listen to Rush Limbaugh?
I don't think there was any collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia - it's all fantasies of people who are baffled that Trump won.

I don't think there was any collusion between Hillary's campaign and Russia.

I do think Russians greased the wheels in the uranium deal a bit by funneling money to Hillary. TheHill's article in fact says so explicitly. As in: "Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill"

Hope this clarifies matters for you.
Snopes.
Quote:
The Uranium One deal was not Clinton’s to veto or approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating the transaction for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can’t veto a transaction; only the president can. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the Uranium One decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton herself “never intervened” in committee matters.

The timing of most of the donations does not match

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, according to The New York Times — Ian Telfer, the company’s chairman:

The timing of Telfer’s donations might be questionable if there was reason to believe that Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the approval of the deal with Russia, but all the evidence points to the contrary — that Clinton did not play a pivotal role, and, in fact, may not have played any role at all.
Hope this clarifies matters for you.
  #32  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:53 AM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
""Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill" is new information that Snopes doesn't address.

Not Giustra. Not Telfer. "Russian nuclear officials".

Last edited by Okrahoma; 10-20-2017 at 08:54 AM.
  #33  
Old 10-20-2017, 08:58 AM
running coach running coach is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
""Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill" is new information that Snopes doesn't address.

Not Giustra. Not Telfer. "Russian nuclear officials".
How conveniently non-specific, Anonymous sources much?
Since someone knows about it, I'm sure you can link to the proof of this.
Otherwise, it's the fake news the Russians and their operatives are so well known to spread.
  #34  
Old 10-20-2017, 12:24 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
No. Would you listen to Rush Limbaugh?
I don't think there was any collusion between Trump's campaign and Russia - it's all fantasies of people who are baffled that Trump won.

I don't think there was any collusion between Hillary's campaign and Russia.

I do think Russians greased the wheels in the uranium deal a bit by funneling money to Hillary. TheHill's article in fact says so explicitly. As in: "Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill"

Hope this clarifies matters for you.
"Explicitly"?

Where was the part where it said "designed to influence Hillary Clinton's work on the CFIUS"? I saw "designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation" but not the other part. Could you point it out?

Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 10-20-2017 at 12:26 PM.
  #35  
Old 10-20-2017, 01:08 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
More about Hillary's involvement with Russians. Frantic efforts by her to return caught Russian spies in "one-sided" deal with Russia.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hi...ghost-stories/

For TL;DRs -

"Several questions come to mind. Precisely what did the FBI know about Russia’s spy service targeting Hillary Clinton and her inner circle? Why did Clinton deny through spokespersons that she had been a Russian target? Why did she work so feverishly to get the spies out of the United States and back to Russia? Why has the FBI leadership not been more vocal in touting one of its greatest counterintelligence successes ever? And why did nobody in the FBI leadership raise this issue during the 2016 Russian election meddling controversy?"
  #36  
Old 10-20-2017, 01:17 PM
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 20,343
More about John Kelly's lies.
  #37  
Old 10-20-2017, 01:20 PM
Okrahoma Okrahoma is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 2,710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
Complete non-sequitur. Did you mean to post this in another thread?
  #38  
Old 10-20-2017, 01:25 PM
running coach running coach is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 31,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
Complete non-sequitur. Did you mean to post this in another thread?
After a while, all your idiot threads start looking alike.
  #39  
Old 10-20-2017, 01:27 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okrahoma View Post
More about Hillary's involvement with Russians. Frantic efforts by her to return caught Russian spies in "one-sided" deal with Russia.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/20/hi...ghost-stories/

For TL;DRs -

"Several questions come to mind. Precisely what did the FBI know about Russia’s spy service targeting Hillary Clinton and her inner circle? Why did Clinton deny through spokespersons that she had been a Russian target? Why did she work so feverishly to get the spies out of the United States and back to Russia? Why has the FBI leadership not been more vocal in touting one of its greatest counterintelligence successes ever? And why did nobody in the FBI leadership raise this issue during the 2016 Russian election meddling controversy?"
Did read, but opinion piece, dismissed.

Although it shows that the Russians did wanted to meddle in our affairs from a long time ago, this does not remove at all the current issue with the President and his family (in reality it shows how they could move from the apparent failure to get a lot from Clinton to the blatant current issue where Trump is late on adopting the sanctions to Russia that congress approved. It is the Trump family the one that is indeed ruthless and wants to enrich themselves with the government while the Russians helped them more directly.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 10-20-2017 at 01:29 PM.
  #40  
Old 10-20-2017, 01:29 PM
QuickSilver QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 15,632
It strikes me as dishonesty to argue that the Clintons don't have dirt under their finger nails. I'm all for investigative reporting of that dirt, where it came from and how long it's been there. HOWEVER, they are not elected officials now. They do not play a role in governing this country and they do not pose a threat to the stability of government, national security and international relations. We all know who does and that should be the primary focus of the Russian collusion investigation.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #41  
Old 10-20-2017, 06:35 PM
Idle Thoughts Idle Thoughts is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 12,246
Mod Note

Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
After a while, all your idiot threads start looking alike.
This is out of line for MPSIMS, don't make comments like these.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017