found online by Raymond
From The Big Empty:
Focusing on leaks, on Clinton’s emails, on questioning the veracity of the FBI. Like Trumpsky, does Sen. Grassley have something to hide as well? At this point, it is still speculation but several sources have indicated that a number of Republican leaders in the House and Senate played a role in Trumpsky’s campaign money-laundering and Russian hacked emails scheme. So most certainly Grassley could be compromised as is Richard Burr on the Senate side.
Only time will tell.
I don’t know if there is any collusion with the Trump administration and the Russians. I sort of doubt it, but Trump is a dumb ass, so who really knows? I think that the investigation should continue, but I suspect it is just more Democrat sour grapes that is the catalyst for this.
The Good Lord knows that if Saint Hillary were sitting in the oval office, the fact that the Russians now own a significant portion of our uranium reserves and Hillary received large contributions to the now-defunct Clinton Foundation as a result of that is merely coincidence and not worthy of our notice, let alone investigation, by these very same folks clamoring for the Trump investigation.
As an old friend would put it though, “It’s okay if you are a Democrat.” Right?
Yes, Trump and TP are Right. This Russia stuff is all democrat sour grapes, even Flynn. Yup. Comey was a buffoon for investigating this hoax. He got what he deserved.
”…the fact that the Russians now own a significant portion of our uranium reserves and Hillary received large contributions to the now-defunct Clinton Foundation as a result of that is merely coincidence”
Oh, dear. I’m worried if I use facts to contradict this accusation featuring an incorrect sequence of events, that also lacks evidence of a quid pro quo deal, I will be accused of calling TP a racist or Nazi.
Let me clear this up immediately. TP is not a racist and definitely not a Nazi. He is merely wrong stating the uranium deal was “a result” of Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation. It wasn’t in her power to veto the deal if she could anyway. But who cares about facts?
Snopes offers the timeline and facts:
=
“Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s approval of a deal to transfer control of 20% of U.S. uranium deposits to a Russian company was a quid pro quo exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
False.
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.”
=
But good conservatives never let facts get in the way of hating and blaming democrats and liberals. This is what I’ve learned in my studies to become more conservative.
Lock her up! Who needs a reason? Who needs to cite the law that was broken? Emails! Benghazi! She gave our uranium to the Russians! (They can’t export it out of our country, BTW) , but again, who cares about facts?
As a conservative in training, I sure don’t.
Never mind this information. Forget about it. I know some of us will.
Speaking of Russia, if Saint Hillary were sitting in the oval office and directly gave the Russians classified ISIS information, like Trump did, then that can only mean, “Lock HER up!” Amirite? It’s OK for Don the Con. Just ask conservatives and Republicans.
Damn that Hillary and her sour grapes! This HAS to be all HER fault.
I mean, let’s not lose perspective here. Emails! Benghazi!
All together, fellow conservatives, “Lock HER up! Lock HER up!”
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Well here is an article from the notoriously right-wing New York Times that seems to shed a rather different and unfavorable light on the subject. Of course there are the Clinton denials of wrong doing or that they were even involved in the Uranium One decisions, but the truth of the matter is there are repeated matters of unseemliness of the perceived quid pro quo there.
There is certainly far more evidence in this matter than there ever was for a George W. Bush “lying war monger” accusation to go to war in Iraq. But evidence be damned. It only matters if you have a “D” or a “R” after your name.
Of particular interest in the article are these following two passages:
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And 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 banker with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.”
And this one:
“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”
Thank you for the link from 2 years ago, T. Paine. Seems that further investigation has revealed a bit more – which is to say a bit less.
Snopes seems pretty sure about the false rating they give to the quid-pro-quo accusation.
Unfortunately Mr. Paine found no particular interest in the part of his linked article that says one of their sources was a Rightie, (How fair and balanced of the NYT! They get fooled frequently by the Right.) He also seemed to find no particular interest in the part that cannot confirm quid pro quo.
Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown.
Unknown? Not if you are a conservative. They know everything journalists do not. I’ve learned that lesson in my studies on “How to be a conservative”.
Lesson One: Hillary, as well as any Democrat or liberal, is guilty of every accusation from any conservative. Evidence need not be presented. We just know, because we want to believe the worst about people we hate.
Lesson Two: Journalism cannot be trusted because it has a partisan liberal bias and activist agenda. The media is liberal, no matter how much of it is corporate owned and managed. Therefore, because of this vapid sweeping generalization, only conservative sources of information are to be trusted. (See Lesson One.)