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.
Rachel Maddow discusses two real scandals. Comments, Okrahoma ?
Your first link doesn’t contain much information at all; just FYI.
Quick, try to distract with two completely unrelated (and one removed) youtube videos!
2010…? Yyaaaaaaaawn.
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.
Looks like 45* realized he’s losing the NFL tantrum-throwing twaddle, needed a new distraction.
[Bricker]
That’s how it’s done.
[/Bricker]
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” ?
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.
Hope this clarifies matters for you.
"“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.
“Explicitly”? :dubious:
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?
More about Hillary’s involvement with Russians. Frantic efforts by her to return caught Russian spies in “one-sided” deal with Russia.
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?”
Complete non-sequitur. Did you mean to post this in another thread?
After a while, all your idiot threads start looking alike.
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.
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.