Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

PANDEMIC ALERT LEVEL
123456
Forum Home Forum Home > Off Topic Forum > Political Discussion > Politics - Political Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Hillary's Russian Connections
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Now tracking the new emerging South Africa Omicron Variant

Hillary's Russian Connections

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Message
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2017 at 8:20am
What if Watergate had happened two years after Nixon  was no longer in office?  Then it is not an issue of impeachment. It is criminal and a non-sitting president is not immune from going to jail.

The statute of limitations varies but there is none for treason.

http://banktalk.org/2012/04/26/six-crimes-with-no-statute-of-limitations

Hillary was a lawyer. She was totally aware of everything going on with the Clinton Foundation - the corruption - the bribes and 20% of uranium being sold to the Russians.

The point is all this effort, press, and hard core prosecution has gone into proving Trump worked with the Russians to win the election. There still is no proof he did. There is a lot of hardcore evidence against Obama and Hillary. Not only them but the people running the investigation of Russian involvement were involved with the Russians.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/24/republicans-see-tables-turned-as-dems-face-fresh-russia-controversies.html


“Now it’s the Democrats who have some explaining to do,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement overnight. “I hope they will cooperate with the investigation, be forthcoming with the American people and I expect the media to cover these new developments with the same breathless intensity that they have given to this investigation since day one.”

NBC News first reported early Monday that Tony Podesta and The Podesta Group are now subjects in the special counsel’s Russia investigation, following inquiries regarding former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s finances. 

REPORT: MUELLER PROBE EXPANDS TO TONY PODESTA'S DEALINGS

According to Monday’s NBC News report, Mueller’s team started looking into a Manafort-involved PR campaign for a pro-Ukraine nonprofit reportedly backed by a pro-Russia party; the Podesta Group reportedly was one of many firms that worked on the campaign. According to the report, Mueller’s investigators have since launched a criminal inquiry into whether the company violated the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which requires people in the U.S. who lobby on behalf of foreign entities to register as foreign agents and disclose their work.

comment: CNN is oblivious and refuses to cover this news. They continue in Social Justice Warrior mode to give every person attacking Trump headlines while ignoring issues that are vital to our country. The new investigation is ignored.  They are Fake News - not Real News. Their page reads more like the National Enquirer than a reliable news source. CBS is breaking away a little. NY times is no better - not a story or a line about a huge scandal and whiplash for the Democrats now that the table has turned.

The Democrats are so loud because they are so losing. Have you ever been talking to someone who is passionate about something and you introduce a few facts which completely destroys their argument and then they come up with something else? This called doubling down -

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=double%20down

The term is increasingly used as a media euphemism when political figures tell bald-faced lies and when confronted with contradictory statements, the politician not only fails to retract their claims but instead expresses an increased certainty in their truth.

We see a picture of Comey and his discovered Twitter account. He has a beatific smile, all charm and sharing his pictures. Every Trump picture has him frowning and looking like an annoyed brat.  When they can catch the fish mouth, they do. None of this is relevant. It is the media's way of showing criminals - making the masses laugh at people they don't like or is profitable for them to attack. Look at the transsexual arrested for raping the 10 year old with a tearful face. He was (now she- we must be accurate or is this accurate? a monster. The media can make you look real bad - from movie star to scary looking.

We have not been doing well with the Russians. We lost a huge amount of tech when a master spy assigned to investigate the mole leaking secrets was the mole.  We have a lot more to worry about than Russia trying to influence elections.

http://observer.com/2016/08/the-real-russian-mole-inside-nsa/

Edward Snowden no doubt took a large amount of secrets as well.  Yet, he did not get any money and quite more significantly $145,000,000 dollars went back and forth to people involved in the uranium sale to Russia.

They were dealing with Putin - who seems to be in the spotlight more and more.  The irony - who knew about and covered this with great zeal?  The New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

By JO BECKER and MIKE McINTIRE

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

comment: We have far more than a smoking gun here - we have pictures of the person holding it and firing.

https://www.usapoliticstoday.com/clinton-foundation-145-million-russia/

Hillary Clinton approved the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia and nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

comment: What is difficult to understand about this?

While Hillary Clinton’s State Department was one of eight agencies to review and sign off on the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to Russia — then-Secretary of State Clinton herself was the only agency head whose family foundation received $145 million in donations from multiple people connected to the uranium deal, as reported by the New York Times.

comment: The Clinton foundation was a front and used to funnel money for "pay for play" to foreign enemies of the U.S.  This is incredible. While tainted investigators dig to try and find some link through Trump's employees we have collusion of the highest order not only with Hillary but the Obama Administration as well.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/356239-trump-obama-era-uranium-deal-is-real-russia-story

"The problem is mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people they protect," Trump claimed. "So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium and, frankly, it’s a disgrace and it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover. It’s so sad.” 

The Hill reported Wednesday that the FBI uncovered evidence that Russian nuclear officials were involved in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering before the Obama administration approved the deal.

comment: This was threat to the national security of America selling 20% of uranium to Russia for a $145,000,000 kickback to Clinton's foundation. It happened. It is provable with hardcore evidence and the mainstream is ignoring it because - it doesn't fit their narrative and they continue to headline stories attacking Trump. People are not fooled. And when the elections come - a hard rain is going to fall on the Democrats.

Medclinician






"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2017 at 9:48am
My original question still stands unanswered, Med.  Until it is (or she is arraigned, which would answer it by default) intelligent opinion remains largely unchanged about Hilary.  

There are counter arguments to every point you raise, including those which reflect badly on Trump (I might loathe him, but everyone is innocent until proven guilty) but that point should be cleared up before anything else is considered for discussion.  Without the answer, everything else is suspect.

So, still waiting.................................................................
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2017 at 9:56am
Originally posted by Technophobe Technophobe wrote:

Could it be that there is only extremely circumstantial and invented evidence.  Lies, Damn lies and Trump Tweets?


Still waiting.....................................................................


I have answered you several times now and if you would read my last post it specifically references hard core evidence that the foundation received $145,000,000 from multiple donors in exchange for the uranium deal. Before charges can be filed, they must start a new investigation and that goes back to our Judicial Branch and Jeff Sessions.  Okay fair enough. Here is your answer and in a video which is very current.


"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2017 at 11:10am
Now they are investigating.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/24/house-republicans-launch-new-probes-into-obama-era-uranium-one-deal-fbi-handling-clinton-case.html

House Republicans on Tuesday launched new probes into several Obama-era controversies, covering both the Justice Department’s 2016 handling of the Clinton email case and the administration’s 2010 approval for the sale of a mining company that gave the Russians partial control over American uranium reserves.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., announced his committee and the House Oversight Committee will investigate the so-called Uranium One deal.

“We’re not going to jump to any conclusions, but we’re going to try and get the facts,” Nunes said.

Separately, the House oversight and judiciary committees announced a joint investigation into the Justice Department and FBI’s handling of the Clinton email probe.  

"Decisions made by the Department of Justice in 2016 have led to a host of outstanding questions that must be answered,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said in a statement.

comment: Finally. I have a new respect for FOX network. The only one covering this.

Medclinician


"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 24 2017 at 11:26am
Perhaps if I repeat the question, you will understand it.  If she is so guilty, why did Trump drop his promise to chase her until he could "Lock her up"?  

You have given lots and lots and lots of lengthy answers, some were probably accurate, but you have never answered that specific question and it is axiomatic to this whole thread.  Perhaps I could rephrase it.  Would that help?

Trump himself dropped his pursuit of Hilary.  Why?  My question did not relate to any inquiry about Obama and his administration or Hilary's husband.  In fact the specific root of the question was Trump.  Why is he not personally keeping that campaign promise?  

To remind you, Trump said before the election that he would pursue her and "lock her up".  No sooner had the election ended than he said he would drop the pursuit.  

Personally I suspect they are both crooked enough to embarrass a gordian knot and that is the answer, but I asked you to answer this question, as you have adopted the chase of Hilary - apparently on Trump's behalf - at least as far as AFT is concerned; I doubt the wider world gives a damn.  My own suspicions continue on to the belief that the far-right media (which is the source of most of your information, that and the loony fringe) is being encouraged to adopt the Hilary-hunt as a distraction from Trump (their hero)'s regular faux pas.  This might be a good thing as, if the distraction fails, Trump could possibly take the world into war as the next distraction attempt.

In conclusion, most of your 'evidence', though not necessarily all, remains suspect until the original question is answered.  Then, and only then will the debate be worth considering.  Trump, after all, is the one in power now and you yourself said this thread was about Hilary, not Bill or Barack.

So, drop the distraction tactics please, or answer the actual question.   Preferably before we fill another page with this interminable discussion, which I will have to return and wade through (not looked forward to, believe me) to answer all the questions I did not answer the first time, while waiting for you to answer my original question.  I am still waiting.
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2017 at 9:59am
It has more than hit the fan now and as I commented yesterday they now have a smoking gun - in fact several. Bottom line.

Medclinician

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/25/fusion-gps-fallout-dnc-clinton-fbi-take-heat-after-bombshell-that-dems-funded-trump-dossier.html

The bombshell revelation that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund the controversial anti-Trump dossier last year has lawmakers and the media asking tough questions about how the dubious document was used by the highest levels of U.S. law enforcement – and why Democrats “lied” about its origins.

In the midst of a court case that threatened to reveal the dossier’s funding, it emerged overnight that political consulting firm Fusion GPS was retained last year by Marc E. Elias, an attorney representing the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The firm then hired former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to write the now-infamous dossier.


comment: The Clinton Campaign - DNC funded the report even after the election paying the Russians for dirt on Trump. If this isn't collusion to control American politics, what is?

Caught with no possible excuse for deliberately misleading American Intelligence, working with the Russians to destroy Trump.

This is huge and unbelievable. The depth and levels of corruption not only of the Clintons but the Obama Administration is knee deep in this.

I have outtakes of Hillary's comments back stage how there are two versions - one she gives to her voters and one she shares with her friends - who now appear - some which were Russians.

It is the old Hitler big lie technique. A story so bad no one can believe it.

And now the the witch hunt begins - for the real witch all along.

Medclinician
"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2017 at 10:46am
Steele Dossier was funded first by Trump's GOP opponents then by Democrats—which we knew all along

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/25/1709698/-Steele-Dossier-was-funded-first-by-Trump-s-GOP-opponents-then-by-Democrats-which-we-knew-all-along

golly gee
 a politician paid someone to dig up dirt on their opponent
what's the world coming to
lets all just gasp and clutch our pearls !!!
YOU do remember when Donnie Jr met with the Russians when the claimed they had dirt on Hillary don't you ???????????????????????????????

and it is clear the Russians and Assange desperately wanted Trump in office
as their efforts were all directed towards that objective

and lets see the FULL disclosure of that dossier
I bet its mighty good readingLOL

and really Med
giving Trump credit for a new VA clinic which obviously was years in planning ???
if you are honest you will send a thank you note to Barack Hussein Obama for that clinic
one of the last things he did before leaving office was to designate BILLIONS more for the VA
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2017 at 11:03am

Analysis | The Clinton camp and DNC funded what became the Trump-Russia dossier: Here’s what it means


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/analysis-the-clinton-camp-and-dnc-funded-what-became-the-trump-russia-dossier-here%e2%80%99s-what-it-means/ar-AAu1aBw?li=BBnbcA1

The firm that the Clinton camp and the DNC paid also has alleged ties to the Kremlin. In Senate testimony in July, Hermitage Capital Management chief executive William Browder accused Fusion GPS and its head, Glenn Simpson, of running a smear campaign against Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian whistleblower who in 2009 was tortured and killed in a Russian prison after uncovering a $230 million tax theft. Magnitsky worked for Browder, and he is the namesake of a law containing sanctions that was passed by Congress and is a sore spot between the U.S. government and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Browder said the smear campaign was run by Fusion GPS with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin. You might remember them from the meeting with Donald Trump Jr. that took place in June 2016. Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer with alleged Kremlin ties who arranged the meeting.

They were all allegedly working with the law firm Baker Hostetler to defend the Russian company Prevezon from charges it laundered funds stolen in the fraud Magnitsky uncovered.
“Veselnitskaya, through Baker Hostetler, hired Glenn Simpson of the firm Fusion GPS to conduct a smear campaign against me and Sergei Magnitsky in advance of congressional hearings on the Global Magnitsky Act,” Browder will testify. “He contacted a number of major newspapers and other publications to spread false information that Sergei Magnitsky was not murdered, was not a whistleblower and was instead a criminal. They also spread false information that my presentations to lawmakers around the world were untrue.”

Fusion GPS has confirmed it worked on a lawsuit involving Veselnitskaya for two years, The Post's Josh Rogin reported. It denied any involvement in the Trump Jr. meeting.

The firm has worked with both Democrats and Republicans over the years.



“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2017 at 11:15am
I can agree on one point, Med.  It is unbelievable.  If Hilary is so dirty, why is Trump not keeping his "lock her up" promise?  He dropped his prosecution within 48 hours of inauguration.  So. is she innocent?  Is that why?  Or, is he scared of what else will come out?  I suspect the latter, but it could be both.

Same specific question.  Still no specific answer.
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2017 at 11:21am
if Hillary is dirty
then Donnie Jr certainly is tooLOL
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2017 at 11:57am

How 'Putin's Revenge' became Trump's victory

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/frontline-putin-trump-134034759.html


there is NO indication that Putin tried to support Hlllary

by all indications he absolutely loathed her

Putin did everything he could to assure a Trump win

and thats why I think this whole Clinton/uranium story will turn out to be a bit nothing burger

but lets let Trey Gowdy and Darryl Issa waste millions of tax payer dollars to find this out


“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 25 2017 at 3:14pm
must be only able to get Murdochs fake news where Med lives because meds links are always from that "news" organisation,

 Med ,you really do need to broaden your reading Matter, try the BBC , or the Aussie ABC, al Jazeera middle east news, or DW thats the German news, you could even try RT thats the Russian news.....

dont go to SKY another Murdoch fake news .org,

 you might suprise yourself and learn what the world already knows about CHUMP
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 26 2017 at 3:05pm

Despite the conspiracies, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are going backwards fast

By Bobo Lo

Posted about 2 hours ago

On the surface, Trump and Putin agree on much. They subscribe to a realist view of international relations, and reveal a certain authoritarian like-mindedness.

They resent the establishment — domestic in Trump's case, international in Putin's.

The "besieged fortress" mentality (the world against us) that has long been a part of Russian strategic culture is also present in Trump.

And both presidents adopt highly individualised approaches to decision-making, and place great importance on personal relations with other world leaders.

Such affinities should offer a reasonable basis for an improved US-Russia relationship. Yet nine months after Trump assumed office, almost nothing has been achieved. Instead of momentum, there is regression.

US sanctions against Russia have been strengthened. Accusations of Russian interference in the US democratic process have become more strident.

There has been no movement on counterterrorism cooperation. Even Washington's decision to end the CIA covert assistance program to the Syrian opposition, portrayed as a concession to Moscow, had been in the pipeline well before Trump was elected.

Why so little progress?

There are several reasons. Some are general and long-standing, such as strong anti-Kremlin sentiment in Congress and within the Republican Party.

But the biggest obstacles to movement in the US-Russia relationship arise from the dysfunctionality of the Trump administration.

First among these is the all-encompassing distraction of various Russia-related scandals.

It has proved impossible for the White House to push a Russia agenda in circumstances where any concession to Moscow, however minor, is viewed as suspicious or worse.

The scandals pose a mortal threat to Trump's presidency.

The second impediment to progress is anarchy within the administration, which is riven by divisions and infighting. It cannot govern itself, let alone take on major policy tasks.

We have seen this not only with respect to Russia, but also with key elements of the Republican domestic agenda, such as the repeal of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), immigration, and tax reform.

The adults' hands are tied

The appointments of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, James Mattis as Secretary of Defence, and HR McMaster as National Security Advisor were supposed to have injected some professionalism — "the adults back in charge" — into the business of government.

But these respected individuals have faced huge difficulties in carrying out their jobs.

Most of all, there is the problem of a president whose attention span is short, whose ignorance of foreign affairs is vast, and for whom wild policy swings are a virtue.

As a result, there is no policy coherence within the administration, least of all on Russia where there is a major divide between Trump on the one hand, and the US defence and security establishment on the other, with Secretary of State Tillerson occupying an uncomfortable position somewhere in the middle.

This problem has been exacerbated by the glacial pace of political appointments to senior positions in the Defence and State departments.

The overall outcome is that the disconnect between policy pronouncements and implementation has never been so wide. Talk of cooperative engagement with Russia remains largely that — talk.

Russia not Trump's priority

Third, notwithstanding its public profile, Russia is not a high priority for Trump. It is telling that his first official meeting with Putin did not occur until after he had been in the White House for six months, and then only as a bilateral in the margins of a multilateral summit.

The delay was partly due to the political sensitivities surrounding the Russia connection.

But it also reflected the reality that for Trump, foreign affairs is a poor relation to his domestic agenda. His July trip to Warsaw and Hamburg was only his second since becoming president.

Even among foreign policy priorities, Russia ranks relatively low — well behind the Middle East, relations with China, and Europe.

Its significance is essentially instrumental. It is regarded as a means of meeting other, more-important objectives, such as combating international terrorism and checking Iranian influence in the Middle East.

This attitude is similar to that of Bush and Obama, both of whom saw Russia as a niche ally (or irritant), rather than fully fledged partner.

Competing interests

Fourth, American and Russian interests often conflict, including in areas where their priorities are said to converge.

In counterterrorism, for example, America's focus is on crushing Islamic State. Russia's priorities, however, are to consolidate its leading role in Syria, boost its strategic presence across the Middle East, and promote itself as a global player.

In Ukraine, Washington seeks a more-or-less neutral resolution of the conflict, while Moscow's goal is to restore its former influence over Kiev.

Washington and Moscow have both been highly critical of NATO, but from very different standpoints.

Mattis has reiterated the long-held (and long-ignored) American view that European member states need to do more by way of burden-sharing, in order to make NATO more effective. Moscow desires just the opposite — the demise or emasculation of the alliance.

All these differences are exacerbated in a climate of growing uncertainty.

No economic incentive

Fifth, economic ties are too weak to mitigate the many negatives in the relationship. In 2016 the United States accounted for only 4.5 per cent of Russia's overseas trade (compared to the European Union's 43.3 per cent, and China's 14.1 per cent), while Russia was not even in the top 20 of US trading partners.

In 2012, ExxonMobil and the Russian state oil company Rosneft concluded a huge deal to develop oil and gas in the Kara Sea (Arctic), but sanctions brought this venture to a shuddering halt.

Since then, global energy prices have fallen by more than half, making such cooperation far less profitable.

The expansion of US shale gas has put further downward pressure on prices, in the process undermining one of Moscow's chief instruments for projecting power, and creating yet another source of tension in the relationship.

Personal conflict

Finally, the personal dynamic between Trump and Putin has proved largely a negative. Presidential diplomacy can sometimes make progress where this would otherwise be impossible.

However, Trump and Putin are such alienating figures in Washington their direct involvement in policy initiatives has tended to discredit these.

The former director of national intelligence, James Clapper, reflected a widely held view when he remarked that many of Trump's actions seemed designed to "make Russia great", not America.

Putin is clearly sensitive to this perception. At a press conference following the 2017 BRICS summit in Xiamen, he responded archly when asked whether he was disappointed in Trump: "He is not my bride, and I am not his bride or fiance".

Dr Bobo Lo is a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute and an associate research fellow with the Russia/NIS Center at the French Institute of International Relations. This is an excerpt of a paper released by the Lowy Institute, "An Accident Waiting to Happen - Trump, Putin and the US-Russia relationship".

Topics: donald-trumpworld-politicsforeign-affairsunited-statesrussian-federation

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2017 at 11:12am

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin Rightly Says 'This Whole Uranium Thing Comes From Fox News'

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/10/cnns-jeffrey-toobin-rightly-says-whole

CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin weighed in on the controversy. "This whole uranium thing comes from Fox News. This is a closed investigation that came up in Peter Schweizer's book, Clinton Cash" in 2015. It was discredited then."

Camerota said the uranium deal came about in "2010."

Toobin continued, "The book came out in 2015. It was one of the accusations, it's has been discredited. Two years later, Fox News and Republicans in Congress and Republicans in the White House start raising it simply as a way to wave Russia back at the Democrats."


MORE FAKE NEWS from  Trump and the FAUX News Network

“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2017 at 12:49pm
It can be very hard to find out whom is lying about political events and whom is merely twisting things to their own advantage.  With that in mind, I decided to do an advanced search on Google to see how many posts came up about "dodgy deals" with Russia and who published which opinion.  The search included the words Democrat OR Republican OR Clinton OR Bush OR Obama OR Trump and the search included the parameters of only the last 24 hours.  

Three pages of results appeared.  After the non political results were removed there were seven results remaining. 

My next task was to evaluate the sites which published these stories.

One was anti-Trump, though logically so and evidenced based. Sadly it was from a comedian, Seth Myers.  It was reasonable, but it is way too hard to take seriously someone whose other stories were about things as relevant to our political situation as "Game of Thrones".

Next, two came from The John Gaunt show - which is so heavily right wing it calls our UKIP "soft" and so inaccurate it calls London more dangerous than New York, suggesting it houses hundreds of Jihadis, which is laughable. 

Then there was Eye Witness News, which only mentioned politicians in passing, the rest was about nuclear power in South Africa.  There was once a shooting magazine which published a review of "Lady Chatterly's Lover" during its obscenity trial.  The review talked only about the accuracy/inaccuracy of the pheasant rearing information.  The article reminded me of that.  There were three more in the same vein. Mentioning the politics only in passing whilst discussing something else

Where did this all lead me?  Nowhere!  - at least when trying to uncover the truth of the scandals being bandied about.  In conclusion, If you look hard enough on the internet, you can find evidence of Father Christmas, fairys and alien invasion, but no reliable political information.

Stick to Aft.  At least our differing opinions are researched and thought about.

I might have been able to find something more erudite, logical and accurate if I did a "last week" search.  I apologise, I could not face the hours of trolling through the insanity, hilarity and partisan extremity that would entail.  I failed.  SORRY!


How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
CRS, DrPH View Drop Down
Expert Level Adviser
Expert Level Adviser


Joined: January 20 2014
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 26660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote CRS, DrPH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2017 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by Technophobe Technophobe wrote:



Stick to Aft.  At least our differing opinions are researched and thought about.


I agree!  We have a wide geographical range, and a great deal of variation in political thought, without any axes to grind!  That's why I like our political discourse on AFT. 

I found this to be compelling information regarding the purported Clinton/Russia angle:

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/a-false-corruption-claim/

However, whenever "Slick Willie" Clinton is involved, anything is possible!!  

I get a bit tired of all the endless investigations into the Clintons that end up with nothing - Whitewater, Benghazi etc.  I don't know what the US Alt Right would do if they were to both suddenly die!!  Go after their daughter Chelsea probably. 

AFT is great, keep up the dialogue!  This is all pertinent to our core mission of pandemic planning, as the ongoing political turmoil does nothing good for national or international preparedness.  
CRS, DrPH
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2017 at 2:49pm
agreed Chuck,

nothing like getting other folks opinion,

especially from  a close Friend you tells you you have Bad Breath............


Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 27 2017 at 3:11pm

Chinese President Xi Jinping takes absolute control of armed forces in military shake-up

By China correspondent Matthew Carney

Updated Thu at 3:07pm

The Chinese military — the People's Liberation Army (PLA) — has seen the biggest shake-up in decades at the week-long 19th Party Congress that has wrapped up in Beijing.

Most of the top leadership has been replaced with President Xi Jinping's generals.

Mr Xi has already started a complete overhaul and modernisation process of the military.

He wants a fighting force that can back up his vision of making China a world power by 2050.

With more than 2 million troops, China has the world biggest military, but now Mr Xi wants it to be the best.

He has set up the deadlines for this to happen. By 2035 he wants it fully modernised and by 2050 to be the top-ranked military.

Nearly 90 per cent of the military delegates to the Congress were new faces.

On Wednesday, Mr Xi replaced three out of the four top generals of the Central Military Committee.

This was the last but most important step in Mr Xi taking absolute control of the armed forces.

Professor Willy Lam from the Chinese University of Hong Kong said the purges had been intense in the months leading up to the Congress.

"The entire structure of the PLA has been shaken up. In the last two months, we have seen the elevation of 20 close proteges of Xi Jinping," he said.

"Generals that Xi Jinping knew when he worked in the provinces of Fujian and Zhejiang from 1985 to 2007. So, these generals that he has trusted have been promoted."

Mr Xi's reform process is already well underway. Seven military regions have been re-made into five combat commands. The aim is to modernise to make troops more mobile and war-ready.

Political power grows out of barrel of a gun

Professor Lam said Mr Xi has used strident nationalism, like claims over the South and East China seas to build his legitimacy as a strongman.

"There is no doubt that Xi Jinping will reserve a big part of the budget for military modernisation and particularly the modernisation of weapons," he said.

"Xi Jinping as the leader of the PLA is convinced within 10 to 20 years, China can close the gap with the Russians, and before the middle of this century China can close the defence gap in terms of military and weapon sophistication with the United States."

The blue water navy is to be built up as China pushes itself further into the Pacific.

China has built its second aircraft carrier and there is more on the way.

The navy is set to get a threefold increase in marines in the next several years. It is also extending its military presence further afield, setting up a base in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa.

China is already starting to build its own military hardware. It has developed the J-20 stealth fighter and the new generation J-16 strike jet fighter.

The PLA has taken delivery of its 1,000th attack helicopter — 20 years ago they only had 100 and they were used for transport.

But there is a long way to go and the Chinese military has not been tested in battle since 1979, when they suffered a humiliating counterpunch by a battle-hardened Vietnamese army.

Professor Joseph Chen, from City University of Hong Kong, said the military build is part and parcel of China becoming a superpower.

"It's natural China will want to have a say, [China] would like to have a measure of control. But this is going to be a long-term process and an expensive process, and it will alarm China's neighbours, so these will be the difficulties facing China," he said.

Mr Xi has made it clear he wants to make China great again, and he knows Mao Zedong's famous adage that "political power grows out of barrel of a gun" is an important way to do it.

Topics: government-and-politicsfederal-governmentdefence-and-national-securitydefence-forcesdefence-industryworld-politics,china

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 29 2017 at 11:17am
Time to lock her up - Hillary Clinton - and all those involved - The Real News



Medclinician


"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 29 2017 at 11:26am
Originally posted by carbon20 carbon20 wrote:

Chinese President Xi Jinping takes absolute control of armed forces in military shake-up




This has nothing at all to do with this thread. Not even close. 

Medclinician
"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 29 2017 at 2:26pm

Hillary Clinton Gave 20 Percent of United States' Uranium to Russia in Exchange for Clinton Foundation Donations?

Allegations of a "quid pro quo" deal giving Russia ownership of one-fifth of U.S. uranium deposits in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation are unsubstantiated.

< ="https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.182.1_en.#goog_682450531" allowfullscreen="" style="-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; : relative; top: 0px; left: 0px; max-width: 100%; width: 300px; height: 150px; text-align: center; border-width: 0px; border-style: initial; display: block; opacity: 0; padding: 0px;">
 
< ="jw-icon jw-nextup- jw-" aria-label="Next Up " style="-sizing: inherit; font-variant-numeric: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 13px; line-height: 1em; font-family: jw-icons; overflow: ; cursor: pointer; touch-: manipulation; margin: 0px; border-radius: 0px; color: rgba255, 255, 255, 0.6; padding: 0px; : none; list-style: none; text-align: left; vertical-align: line; border-width: initial; border-style: none; border-color: initial; direction: ltr; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba255, 255, 255, 0; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; opacity: 0; : ; right: 5px; top: 6px; transition: color 0.15s ease, opacity 0.15s ease, visibility 0.15s ease; visibility: ;">
 109k

CLAIM

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. See Example( s )



RATING

 FALSE

ORIGIN

In the months leading up to the 2016 United States presidential election, stories abounded about the relationships between the Clinton Foundation and various foreign entities.

May 2015 saw the publication of a book called Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, an exposé of alleged Clinton Foundation corruption written by Peter Schweizer, a former Hoover Institution fellow and editor-at-large at the right-wing media company Breitbart.

A chapter in the book suggests that the Clinton family and Russia each may have benefited from a “pay-for-play” scheme while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, involving the transfer of U.S. uranium reserves to the new Russian owners of an international mining operation in exchange for $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation.

The mining company, Uranium One, was originally based in South Africa, but merged in 2007 with Canada-based UrAsia Energy. Shareholders there retained a controlling interest until 2010, when Russia’s nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake. Hillary Clinton played a part in the transaction because it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.

During the same time frame that the acquisition took place, Schweizer claims in Clinton Cash, the Clinton Foundation accepted contributions from nine individuals associated with Uranium One totaling more than $100 million. Among those who followed him in citing the transaction as an example of alleged Clinton corruption was GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump, who said during a June 2016 speech in New York City:

Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump’s campaign repeated the allegation in a September 2016 press release, and again in an October 2016 television ad stating that Clinton “gave American uranium rights to the Russians”:

< -="https://www.youtube.com//epbmHco8sF0" width="500" height="281" border="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" ="lazy-loaded" ="https://www.youtube.com//epbmHco8sF0" style="-sizing: inherit; display: block; margin: 0px auto; max-width: 100%; -: "undefined";">

An image circulating via social media during the final months of the presidential campaign asked the question, “So Hillary, if Russia is such a threat, why did you sell them 20% of our uranium? Are you a liar, or a traitor, or both?”

clinton-uranium

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.

Despite transfer of ownership, the uranium remained in the U.S.

A key fact ignored in criticisms of Clinton’s supposed involvement in the deal is that the uranium was not — nor could it be — exported, and remained under the control of U.S.-based subsidiaries of Uranium One, according to a statementby the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

NRC’s review of the transfer of control request determined that the U.S. subsidiaries will
remain the licensees, will remain qualified to conduct the uranium recovery operations, and will continue to have the equipment, facilities, and procedures necessary to protect public health and safety and to minimize danger to life or property. The review also determined that the licensees will maintain adequate financial surety for eventual decommissioning of the sites. Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

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.

Foundation admits disclosure mistakes
 
One fault investigations into the Clinton Foundation’s practices did find was that not all of the donations were properly disclosed — specifically, those of Uranium One Chairman Ian Telfer between 2009 and 2012. The foundation admitted this shortcoming and pledged to correct it, but as the Guardian pointed out in its May 2015 discussion of Clinton Cash, the fact that it happened is reason enough to sound alarm bells:

It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.

Such awkward collisions between Bill’s fundraising activities and Hillary’s public service have raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

An enormous volume of interest and speculation surrounds the workings of the Clinton Foundation, which is to be expected. Given the enormous sums of money it controls and the fact that it is run by a former U.S. president who is married to a possible future U.S. president, the foundation deserves all the scrutiny it gets, and more.

At the same time, for the sake of accuracy it’s crucial to differentiate between partisan accusations and what we actually know about it — however little that may be.

Update

On 17 October 2017, The Hill reported obtaining evidence that Vadim Mikerin, a Russian official who oversaw the American operations of the Russian nuclear agency Rosatom, was being investigated for corruption by multiple U.S. agencies while the Uranium One deal was up for approval — information that apparently was not shared with U.S. officials involved in approving the transaction. The Hill also reported receiving documents and eyewitness testimony “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,” although no specifics about who those Russian nuclear officials were or how the money was allegedly routed to the Clinton Foundation were given. In any case, none of these revelations prove that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton participated in a quid pro quo agreement to accept payment for approval of the Uranium One deal.

Updated [17 October 2017]: Added synopsis of new reportage by The Hill.

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 29 2017 at 2:46pm
why i posted about China was the Fact you should be looking to what is really happening in the world and not stuck on imaginary bad fairy H.Clinton ,

you are all fixated on a Tweet from a soon to be EX president of the USA ,

the WHOLE world thinks Trump is a bad idea,its only you blind fools that seem to support him,

you all need to wake up ,Climate Change is real ,and its here now ,and if like me you have Grand kids you should be very worried about their future.

all the pollitics all the sports, all the weapons ,

all just BULL...t because the ONLY thing that should on peoples minds is ,

how is the human race going to survive into the 22nd century,

why should i care you may ask ?

the same reason that i believe in a health system that cares for all ,

i am a human being and i do care for others...................

as another "Aside" !!! lol ,have you ever read "the art of war"
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 29 2017 at 2:56pm
i wonder which side  republicans or democrates ,first  allowed other countries to own mining rights in the in the USA, it would seem that is whats at the bottom of these Clinton /Russian plots ,

we just await to see what Mueller truns up...............
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2017 at 5:12am
Joy Reid dismantles GOP Uranium One propaganda in a little under two minutes

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/29/1710809/-Joy-Reid-dismantles-GOP-Uranium-One-propaganda-in-a-little-under-two-minutes

this whole "scandal" is literally the definition of FAKE NEWS

nice try DonnieLOL
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2017 at 7:53am
Originally posted by carbon20 carbon20 wrote:

why i posted about China was the Fact you should be looking to what is really happening in the world and not stuck on imaginary bad fairy H.Clinton ,

you are all fixated on a Tweet from a soon to be EX president of the USA ,

the WHOLE world thinks Trump is a bad idea,its only you blind fools that seem to support him,

you all need to wake up ,Climate Change is real ,and its here now ,and if like me you have Grand kids you should be very worried about their future.

all the pollitics all the sports, all the weapons ,

all just BULL...t because the ONLY thing that should on peoples minds is ,

how is the human race going to survive into the 22nd century,

why should i care you may ask ?

the same reason that i believe in a health system that cares for all ,

i am a human being and i do care for others...................

as another "Aside" !!! lol ,have you ever read "the art of war"


There are other threads for the subjects you have mentioned. The focus of this thread and topic is how Hillary and the Clinton Foundation committed crimes and should be prosecuted.  A Trump impeachment is the delusional fiction of the Social Justice Warriors nearly a year after Trump was elected. They are in denial. They lost. Even trying to fix the election using the media with false polls, Hillary sent herself a congratulation card  she was so sure she would win. She was delusional as was CNN and the New York Times.

The whole world does not think Trump is a bad idea, and at least 50% of America voted for him in the election and were behind his policies and campaign.

Hillary was directly connected to the sale of uranium and took bribes from the Russians to further their agenda in taking U.S. Uranium. No matter how big a smoke screen or what diversion, it was treason.  They begin investigating this today and no matter what shock and awe the Democrats try to wring from a dying horse, Hillary and their foundation should be indicted on racketeering and if not anything else, lying to investigators on numerous occasions.

One does need to learn to focus in life. The DNC and Clinton indirectly paid the Russian to manufacture a false report which was given to our top intelligence people which resulted in a probe.

Carbon20 - you get so emotional about all this. As Spock might say - a little logic would help. You make vast assumpitons - again - Trump will be impeached and the world hates him. This is not so.

Get a grip.  Hillary lost but she still endangered our country and their is a lot of proof.  And do you have no editing skills rather than to cut and past 128 point fonts which fill my whole big screen monitor?

Medclinician

"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2017 at 8:04am
Originally posted by Satori Satori wrote:

Joy Reid dismantles GOP Uranium One propaganda in a little under two minutes

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/29/1710809/-Joy-Reid-dismantles-GOP-Uranium-One-propaganda-in-a-little-under-two-minutes

this whole "scandal" is literally the definition of FAKE NEWS

nice try DonnieLOL


This thread is not about Trump, it is about Hillary. Can anyone stay on topic here?

Joy Reid lost the election for Hillary Clinton and she still is more than one brick shy of a load. As most Social Justice Warrior she thinks saying something makes it true it doesn't.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/09/19/msnbcs-joy-reid-calls-trump-supporters-deplorables.html

She helped alienate millions of voters for Hillary by calling Trump's supporters "deplorables".  This another black woman on a mission calling people racists at every turn and trying to boost NBCs rating on the network.

I can say anything in 5 minutes. That doesn't mean it's true. I will continue to hedge off all the thread diversions that continue to be completely off topic on this thread.

This is about Hillary Clinton's Russian Connections and also the DNC and Obama Administration. They took over $145,000,000 in bribes, and money to the "Pay for Play" for the Clinton Foundation. The formal investigation of the Uranium Sale sent people to prison and was lied about recently when everyone is claiming they did not know "until today" anything about it.

It will continue.  The rest continues to be a smoke screen and a witch hunt which has turned around. Mueller should be removed from the case since he as involved in a far great example of working with the Russians.

You continue to attack anonymously. When my country and my president is attacked I would like to know where that is coming from. It does matter where you are from and free speech is not shooting bullets from the dark - which is what you are doing.


Medclinician

"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 30 2017 at 8:59am
This thread is about Hilary, not Trump.  So,I see your point, Med.  But, I see Satori's and Carbon's too.  

They see Hilary as a smokescreen to take the heat off of Trump.  Though her dealings with Russia were extremely undesirable, they were not illegal.  Do you really think that a Republican controlled judiciary would let a guilty Democrat walk free?  No chance!
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2017 at 9:46am
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/30/gregg-jarrett-still-no-evidence-trump-russia-collusion-but-hillary-is-different-matter.html

Over the weekend, the mainstream media was absolutely giddy with delight upon learning there would be an indictment by special counsel, Robert Mueller.  

This was proof positive, they insisted, that Trump “colluded” with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.  Their exuberance was the equivalent of a two day-long tailgate party. Too bad it was premature. 

Manafort & Gates

The celebration came to a crashing end when the indictments of Paul Manafort and his business associate, Rick Gates, were unsealed Monday morning.  It turns out the charges are, basically, a tax fraud case.  The two men stand accused of hiding their income from their lobbying work for Ukraine in order to avoid paying taxes, then lying about it.  That’s it.

The 31-page indictment makes no mention of Trump or Russia or “collusion.”  The media seemed as dejected as a kid who wakes up on Christmas morning, only to find there are no presents under the tree.  Gee whiz.  

The truth is, it should have come as no surprise to anyone, much less the media, that Manafort was in legal jeopardy for his business dealings.  The FBI raided his home over the summer.  It was later learned that the FBI wiretapped his conversations as far back as 2014.  And it was widely reported that Manafort had been told by Mueller’s team that he would be criminally charged.

It could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

The media became even more dispirited when they read through the indictment, discovering that nearly all of Manafort’s alleged wrongdoing substantially pre-dates his brief stint as chairman of the Trump campaign.  In other words, there is no connection to either Trump or his campaign. 

Somewhere, I’m sure, ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Van Jones were crying.  Again.  Just like the tears they shed on camera election night when Hillary lost. 

Papadopoulos

But wait.  Shortly after the indictments were unsealed, the media’s spirits were suddenly boosted when the special counsel revealed that a former adviser to Trump pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with a Russian national during his time on the Trump campaign.  Surely this was evidence of illegal “collusion,” right?

Wrong.  George Papadopoulos pled guilty to a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI.  He was not charged with so-called “collusion” because no such crime exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters.  It has no application to elections and political campaigns.

It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that.  They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable.

But that did not stop them from accusing Donald Trump, Jr., of illegally conspiring with the Russians when he met with a Russian lawyer to obtain information on Hillary Clinton.  What law did he break?  None.  The Federal Election Commission has made it clear that it is perfectly lawful for foreign nationals to be involved in campaigns, as long as they are not paid and do not donate money.  Which brings us to Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton

It is against the law for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to funnel millions of dollars to a British spy and to Russian sources in order to obtain the infamous and discredited Trump “dossier.”  The Federal Election Campaign Act (52 USC 30101) prohibits foreign nationals and governments from giving or receiving money in U.S. campaigns.  It also prohibits the filing of false or misleading campaign reports to hide the true purpose of the money (52 USC 30121).  This is what Clinton and the DNC appear to have done.

Most often the penalty for violating this law is a fine, but in egregious cases, like this one, criminal prosecutions have been sought and convictions obtained.  In this sense, it could be said that Hillary Clinton is the one who was conspiring with the Russians by breaking campaign finance laws with impunity.

But that’s not all.  Damning new evidence appears to show that Clinton used her office as Secretary of State to confer benefits to Russia in exchange for millions of dollars in donations to her foundation and cash to her husband.  Secret recordings, intercepted emails, financial records, and eyewitness accounts allegedly show that Russian nuclear officials enriched the Clintons at the very time Hillary presided over a governing body which unanimously approved the sale of one-fifth of America’s uranium supply to Russia. 

If this proves to be a corrupt “pay-to-play” scheme, it would constitute a myriad of crimes, including bribery (18 USC 201-b), mail fraud (18 USC 1341), and wire fraud (18 USC 1343).  It might also qualify for racketeering charges (18 USC 1961-1968), if her foundation is determined to have been used as a criminal enterprise. 

Despite all the incriminating evidence, Clinton has managed to avoid being pursued by a special counsel.  Trump, on the other hand, is being chased by Robert Mueller and his team, notwithstanding a dearth of evidence. 

Robert Mueller

The indictments of Manafort and Gates now present a unique opportunity to challenge the authority of the special counsel. 

Until now, no one had legal “standing” to argue in court that the appointment of Mueller was illegal.  The criminal charges change all that.  The two defendants will be able to argue before a judge that Mueller’s appointment by Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the special counsel law. 

As I pointed out in a column last May, the law (28 CFR 600) grants legal authority to appoint a special counsel to investigate crimes.  Only crimes.  He has limited jurisdiction.  Yet, in his order appointing Mueller as special counsel (Order No. 3915-2017), Rosenstein directed him to investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.”   It fails to identify any specific crimes, likely because none are applicable. 

To put it plainly, Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law.  It is a legal impossibility.  He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable. 

If the federal judge agrees, Mueller and his team would be disbanded by judicial order.  The Department of Justice would have to seek a new indictment of Manafort and Gates without the special counsel or drop the case entirely. 

The naming of Robert Mueller was tainted with disqualifying conflicts of interest from the beginning.  Fired FBI Director James Comey admitted he leaked presidential memos to the media for the sole purpose of triggering the appointment of a special counsel who just happens to be Comey’s longtime friend, ally and partner. 

It is no coincidence that Rosenstein appointed Mueller.  We now know both men were overseeing the corrupt Uranium One sale which involved Russian bribes, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering.  They appear to have kept it secret, even hiding it from Congress which would surely have cancelled the transaction involving a vital national security asset.  A cover-up?  It has the stench of one. 

How can Americans have confidence in the outcome of the Trump-Russia matter if the integrity and impartiality of Mueller and Rosenstein has been compromised by their suspected cover-up of the Clinton-Russia case?   Both men should resign. 

And a new special counsel should be appointed – this time to investigate Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump.  

Medclinician
"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2017 at 10:52am
not even worthy of comment

crickets chirping..............
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2017 at 2:24pm
Carbon - I was reading an article about Xi Jinping using the Communist Party Congress that took place earlier this month to consolidate his power. Seems he's doing that, and a whole lot more.



"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2017 at 2:52pm
Didn't Trump prise Xi recently?  It's like watching the mafia patting each other on the back. 

"Eh, Louigi!  You are such a great a Guy!"
"Thank a you Pappa.  It is all a for family!"

I think I am about to part company with my canolli.
How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2017 at 2:58pm
i NEVER get emotional,about  a FOX news item, (never read the rubbish) or politics ,to me its a a big joke , and Chump is the top JOKER....at the moment, 

please Note ,Obama will be the next President of the USA ,

 i cant wait to see Chump SACKED.......

Jacksdad, if you have ever read "the Art of War",its very pertanent to the China situation we have developing NOW.....they building "ports" all over in Strategic places , i.e Sri Lanka,Djibouti , building and fortifing Islands...........seems to me they building infrastructure to what means  ,who knows.....

the World needs a strong USA lead by a 

STATESMAN................

not a TWIT SALESMAN !!!!!


Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: October 31 2017 at 3:23pm
Their ports are almost sovereign territory too, regardless of the country they're in, carbon. Local labor laws don't seem to apply, and they act as their own government. And they make sure to pick spots where an influx of foreign capital and jobs are desperately needed. There's a method to all this, and it doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

In between insulting him, I believe he did, Techno LOL






"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2017 at 6:34am
Shep Smith commits an act of journalism on uranium 'scandal,' and Fox News viewers are outraged



https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/11/15/1715786/-Shep-Smith-commits-an-act-of-journalism-on-uranium-scandal-and-Fox-News-viewers-are-outraged
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
CRS, DrPH View Drop Down
Expert Level Adviser
Expert Level Adviser


Joined: January 20 2014
Location: Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 26660
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CRS, DrPH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2017 at 12:02pm
CRS, DrPH
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2017 at 3:22pm
I've never understood how Shepherd Smith has lasted at Fox. He's far more suited to CNN or MSNBC. It's refreshing to see someone able to step away from the network script, but that doesn't exactly scream job security to me.
"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 15 2017 at 3:23pm
Just reading your LEADER has "mislead"you 1600 times since taking office....

Nice man....not
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 7:51am

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/21/marc-thiessen-yes-clintons-should-be-investigated.html

President Trump’s critics are arguing that GOP calls for the Justice Department to investigate Hillary Clinton and Democrats’ ties to Russia are an effort to distract from the real Russia investigation, into potential Trump-Russia collusion.

No, they are not.

Ever since Watergate, the mantra of all major corruption investigations has been to “follow the money.” Well, Americans of all political stripes should be outraged by the fact that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington are up to their eyeballs in Kremlin cash. Russian money found its way into the pockets of not only Trump advisers like Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — who were recently indicted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — but also Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

This should suggest to objective observers that Russia was using its money to influence both sides in order to advance the Kremlin’s interests. And it means that any full and impartial investigation of Russia’s efforts to influence our political process needs to follow the Russian money flowing into the coffers of the Clintons, their foundation and their top associates.

The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.

comment: Follow the money. There is none going to Trump and all going to the Clinton's from Russia. What interference there may have been from Russia - which of course meddles in everything - it was with the DNC and Clintons in the Uranium Deal.

Let's get it straight people. Hillary is the crook and falsehood teller of the decade.

Medclinician



"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 8:16am
The Real News - and now after decades of illegal actions and criminal activity it is time for a special counsel to be appointed to investigate the link between Russia getting 20% of the U.S. uranium to make nuclear bombs and a threat to our national security.  This dishonesty from the Clinton's is not new. The Democrats would be well to put this and Hillary behind them if they have any common sense. It is time to replace the oldsters in Congress with young blood which represents the next generation of America and clean the biggest swamp of all with people who have no term limit.

What a nasty business it has been and with Bill Clinton getting $500,000 from Russia and the Clinton foundation getting over $145,000,000.

The evidence of Russian collusion?  It points to Hillary and the Clintons - the truth about their history of criminal acts...

Medclinician


"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Medclinician View Drop Down
V.I.P. Member
V.I.P. Member
Avatar
Valued Member Since 2006

Joined: July 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 23322
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Medclinician Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 8:19am
The real story of Russian Collusion - the guilty - Hillary Clinton and the Clinton foundation

Medclinician


"not if but when" the original Medclinician
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin
Avatar

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 88450
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 9:44am
You win, Med

I have to concede this argument; (not because I believe her guilty of any of it, as the vast majority was disproven by your own law enforcement agencies long ago, not even because I believe her innocent of everything - as I believe her to be as crooked as a corkscrew, obviously not because I believe her worse than Trump – I really, REALLY, REALLY don't, not even because the sites you tend to use are renowned for lies and inventions).


But, I give in because it does not matter if she is innocent or not. She is not in power. She is not likely ever to gain power. 'And, as the biggest crook un-hung IS in power AND UNDERMINING EVERY GREAT PRINCIPLE AMERICA EVER STOOD FOR - with the mandate of half of it (How shamefull!), she just simply does not matter; except possibly as a distraction from the real problem, the racist, bent, lying, super-twisted corkscrew who IS in power.


So, why bother trawling through the lies, half-truths, propaganda, statistics and biased opinion whish rules the web, hunting for a tiny morsel of truth in that endless, electronic cess-pit, to disprove a few nasty lies about a woman whom I despise?  Even worse, why help thicken the smokescreen around the most dangerous man to rise to power for the last ½ century, without good reason?


So, You win, Med - by default.

How do you tell if a politician is lying?
His lips or pen are moving.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 12:21pm


so far this story is a big NOTHING BURGER
even only the nut job type Republicans are pushing this

but hey
lets reelect Hillary so we can impeach herLOL
“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
jacksdad View Drop Down
Executive Admin
Executive Admin
Avatar

Joined: September 08 2007
Location: San Diego
Status: Offline
Points: 47251
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jacksdad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 12:43pm
No export license was ever issued, so the uranium would have been used domestically. And Russian doesn't need American uranium - there's an excess of the stuff.


"Buy it cheap. Stack it deep"
"Any community that fails to prepare, with the expectation that the federal government will come to the rescue, will be tragically wrong." Michael Leavitt, HHS Secretary.
Back to Top
Satori View Drop Down
Valued Member
Valued Member
Avatar

Joined: June 03 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 28655
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Satori Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 12:43pm

Journalist Sara Carter Slams DOJ Attempt To Discredit FBI Informant And Stonewall Uranium One Investigation


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-21/journalist-sara-carter-slams-doj-attempt-discredit-fbi-informant-and-stonewall-urani


Based on what the FBI knew – including evidence which purportedly includes a video of Russians preparing briefcases of bribe money – the deal never should have gone through. Moreover, both Robert Mueller and current deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein were directly involved – and current Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other Justice Department officials appear to be covering for them.


hmm

lets go ahead and do a full investigation

Sessions who was appointed by Trump is involved ,Trump is involved

this is gonna be good

interesting that the Trump Justice Dept is sitting on this ???

WHY???


the Republicans control the White House,the Senate and the House

and they are not investigating this ???

things that make ya go hmmmmm LOL

“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” Gary Kasparov
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 65816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2017 at 1:40pm
WHAT A NONSENSE STORY,

The party that allowed foreign investment  in American Uranium companies is the guilty party here,

end of.............

now who was that ?

 i dont know, but i bet my guess would be 100% on the money

and why would you believe anything chump says ?

everything that comes out of his filthy mouth is a LIE

"its easier to fool someone ,than get them to admit they been TAKEN FOR A BIG RIDE"

WAKE UP ..............

Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down