HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » It looks like they have i...

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 08:49 PM

It looks like they have it covered, FAKE PRECEDENT!


7 replies, 4758 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply It looks like they have it covered, FAKE PRECEDENT! (Original post)
yallerdawg Mar 2017 OP
benld74 Mar 2017 #1
nikibatts Mar 2017 #2
Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #3
wishstar Mar 2017 #4
WePurrsevere Mar 2017 #5
yallerdawg Mar 2017 #6
Grassy Knoll Mar 2017 #7

Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 08:52 PM

1. Clinton didn't sell uranium to Russia

Easily enough proved
As is
Podesta ties

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 08:53 PM

2. Snopes is your friend.

 

"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:

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."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 08:57 PM

3. I keep waiting for the point when he can't say anything

dumber than what he has already said but... I think I will be waiting for a long, long time. It's just pathetic and embarrassing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 09:03 PM

4. He's disappointed his earlier tweet failed to set off media on another distracting wild goose chase

For once it was so refreshing that today the mainstream media ignored his previous Clinton/Russia garbage. But he isn't giving up on trying to get them all in a tizzy chasing his fake accusations down a rabbit hole.

Instead USA Today came out with their major, pages long expose of Trump & Co's. long history of financial deals with Russian pro-Putin criminals, in great detail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 09:12 PM

5. Again w/this LIE? Shows he's really desperate...

to distract from his own lies & investigation. It just makes him look more guilty.

I looked at a few of his newest tweets. What a lying credit stealing ass. I see that he's using Murdoch's fake news rag the NY Post to attack the reputable NYTs too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WePurrsevere (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 09:17 PM

6. The jackass thinks the American people are his partisan supporters...

who believe the crap he spews out daily.

Yeah, they laugh and clap, yell "Lock her up" and have a great time - but this show is about over.

His ratings are about to get him canceled!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yallerdawg (Original post)

Tue Mar 28, 2017, 10:15 PM

7. Because Fox News IS Fake News, Just Like You, Don Putin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread