bearister;842861389 said:

---

Trump won't complete 2 years of his term. HE GONE!

https://www.google.com/amp/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/08/21/trumps-business-of-corruption/amp

---

Cal88;842861676 said:

---

Do those laws also apply to the Clinton Foundation?

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



http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/check-it-out-the-new-york-times-just-exposed-the-hillary-clinton-russia-nexus/

---

sp4149;842861729 said:

---

Three orders of magnitude difference, hundreds of thousands versus hundreds of millions. Somehow Grump supporters think that the bigger the egregious conduct the less important.

---

Cal88;842861748 said:

---

Hundreds of imaginary millions, vs. the well-documented millions that were paid to the Clintons just from Russian interests alone.

As if hundreds of millions could have been transferred to Trump from Russian interests without the NSA, SEC and other alphabet agencies finding out. It's kind of staggering how the minds of reasonable fellow Cal grads suddenly turn to mush when processing anything Trump-related.

---

sycasey;842861755 said:

---

Hillary Clinton is not the president and is not going to be president. Not sure why I should be more worried about her now than about Trump's problems.

---

Quote:

---

Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart—you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you're a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged

---

Quote:

---

I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things. … I know what I’m doing and I listen to a lot of people, I talk to a lot of people and at the appropriate time I’ll tell you who the people are. But I speak to a lot of people. My primary consultant is myself, and I have, you know, I have a good instinct for this stuff.

---

Unit2Sucks;842861765 said:

---

Obviously because her charity accepted donation from some bad hombres. And because if you squint hard enough and listen to enough Alex Jones you can convince yourself that she sold Uranium to Putin, who is totally not a bad guy by the way,

---

bearister;842861775 said:

---

"So now he’s the president. And it starts off okay. Meets with President Obama and they seem to have a nice conversation. Then he moves into the White House. Right off the bat he’s angry at the media for reporting the crowd at his inauguration was smaller than he thought it was — which was weird, but not important, really. And he claimed it stopped raining when he was speaking at his inaugural address, which everyone could see it was raining. But okay. It was his first week. You give him a break.
So he gets in there, hires his daughter. He hires his son-in-law. Demands an investigation of voter fraud even though he won the election. He calls the prime minister of Australia and hangs up on him. He won’t shake Angela Merkel’s hand. He doesn’t know Frederick Douglass isn’t alive. He claims he can’t release his tax returns because they’re under audit, then says he’s not going to release them at all. He signs a ban on Muslims that he claims isn’t a ban on Muslims. He compliments the president of the Philippines for murdering drug addicts.
Hours after a terror attack in London he starts a fight with their mayor. After criticizing Obama for playing golf he plays golf every weekend. He accidentally shares classified intelligence with the Russians. He tweets a typo at midnight, then wakes up and claims it was a secret message. He praises Jim Comey in October, calls him a coward in June. He fires him. He lashes out at his own attorney general for recusing himself from an investigation.
He hires the Mooch, he fires the Mooch. He bans the transgender in the military without telling anyone in the military he’s doing it. He plays chicken with Kim Jong Un. And that’s just some of the list. If I went through all of it would be longer than the menu at the Cheesecake Factory. It would be huge."
-Jimmy Kimmel

---

Cal88;842861778 said:

---

You don't have to squint hard, all you have to do is click on this link and read the whole (pay for play) story. NYT link, not Alex Jones. It seems like they were still doing some solid non-partisan reporting not too long ago.

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


And no comment yet on the story from The Nation?

---

dajo9;842861781 said:

---

Dude, you blew up your credibility completely way before these posts. Why should anyone care what you post now?

---

Cal88;842861785 said:

---

Of all the posters on this board, you're easily the most partisan, most petty and least genuinely interested in an open-minded debate. As such, you're not exactly the best arbiter of character on this board.

---

Cal88;842861778 said:

---

You don't have to squint hard, all you have to do is click on this link and read the whole (pay for play) story. NYT link, not Alex Jones. It seems like they were still doing some solid non-partisan reporting not too long ago.

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


And no comment yet on the story from The Nation?

---

Unit2Sucks;842861795 said:

---

I'm surprised you bothered to link to the nation article as opposed to the earlier article on RT which is more up your alley as a news source. I have no reason to believe that anything the forensicator has alleged would make me rethink what our intelligence agencies have reported. Note I use the "we" in the sense of my fellow americans. Here's just one of many articles pointing out the flaws in the forensicator theory: https://www.roughlyexplained.com/2017/08/does-a-new-study-prove-the-dnc-hack-was-an-inside-job/

---

Quote:

---

it's laughable for you to consider something an open-minded debate. You're idea of an open-minded debate is vomiting thousands of pages of propaganda and demanding a response.

---

Cal88;842861778 said:

---

And no comment yet on the story from The Nation?

---

Cal88;842861748 said:

---

Hundreds of imaginary millions, vs. the well-documented millions that were paid to the Clintons just from Russian interests alone.

As if hundreds of millions could have been transferred to Trump from Russian interests without the NSA, SEC and other alphabet agencies finding out. It's kind of staggering how the minds of reasonable fellow Cal grads suddenly turn to mush when processing anything Trump-related.

---

bearister;842862017 said:

---

http://www.newsweek.com/russia-hacking-ukraine-witness-651674?amp=1

---

sp4149;842861950 said:

---

And I suppose Trump's favorite bank paid their $630 million fine for laundering Russian money in NY real estate (hello Donald) with imaginary money. His sons bragged in Public of the hundreds of millions of Russian money they were getting when US Banks stopped lending to the Trumps. It's public record not imagination.

---

Cal88;842862121 said:

---

It's kind of weird that this needs to be spelled out.

---

Unit2Sucks;842862020 said:

---

Cal88 isn't an IT expert but will assure us this is flimsy fake news. Let's see what RT has to say before we make any hasty judgments.

---

Quote:

---

Last week the respected left-liberal magazine The Nation published an explosive article that details in great depth the findings of a new report authored in large part by former U.S. intelligence officers which claims to present forensic evidence that the Democratic National Committee was not hacked by the Russians in July 2016. Instead, the report alleges, the DNC suffered an insider leak, conducted in the Eastern time zone of the United States by someone with physical access to a DNC computer.

This report also claims there is no apparent evidence that the hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 supposedly based in Romania hacked the DNC on behalf of the Russian government. There is also no evidence, the report's authors say, that Guccifer handed documents over to WikiLeaks. Instead, the report says that the evidence and timeline of events suggests that Guccifer may have been conjured up in an attempt to deflect from the embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign that was released just before the Democratic National Convention. The investigators found that some of the "Guccifer" files had been deliberately altered by copying and pasting the text into a "Russianified" word-processing document with Russian-language settings.

If all this is true, these findings would constitute a massive embarrassment for not only the DNC itself but the media, which has breathlessly pushed the Russian hacking narrative for an entire year, almost without question but with little solid evidence to back it up.

---

Unit2Sucks;842862124 said:

---

You mean like how it needs to be spelled out that Hillary didn't sell uranium to Russia or the fact that someone donates money to the Clinton Foundation (which is a charity) is different from a payment to the Clintons themselves?

Incoming Cal88 propaganda in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

---

Quote:

---

"...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...the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton."

"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 bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show."

---

Cal88;842862156 said:

---

-SoS Hillary approved a deal where Rosatom, ....

-The Clinton Foundation received at least $2.35 million from people connected to the deal during that period, and those donations weren't disclosed.

---

Quote:

---

“You know what uranium is, right? It’s this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things. But nobody talks about that.”

---

Unit2Sucks;842862170 said:

---

Do you know how CFIUS works? You say Hillary approved the deal (by the way, there is no evidence that Hillary was personally involved in any decision), but could she have prevented the deal from happening by withholding the state department's approval? I've worked on quite a number of deals that have gone through CFIUS so I have a decent understanding of the process and I know that only one person can veto a deal. Hint: it's not the secretary of state.

---

Quote:

---

You say the Clinton foundation received money from people connected to the deal. Did Hillary personally receive that money?

---

Quote:

---

It's not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP's review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton's speeches have actively sought to sway the government lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of state.

---

Unit2Sucks;842862170 said:

---

By the way, do you think that uranium is a precious resource? From what I've read it's not particularly hard to get and the US only accounts for 2% of worldwide output. Uranium prices have plummeted over the last decade.

---

dajo9;842862212 said:

---

Cal88 wants to talk about the Clintons.

I request everybody else keep the focus of this thread

---

Cal88;842862224 said:

---

Thank God for this.

---

dajo9;842862212 said:

---

Cal88 wants to talk about the Clintons.

I request everybody else keep the focus of this thread

---

Cal88;842862121 said:

---

It's not the $630 million fine that's imaginary here, it's the link of this fine to Trump. This is the equivalent of linking someone to fraud committed by Wells Fargo because he has a mortgage there. Having a loan from Deutsche Bank, a venerable global financial institution with $1.6 trillion in assets, does not make one an accomplice to their improprieties in Eastern Europe. It's kind of weird that this needs to be spelled out.

---

oski003;842862242 said:

---

For the record, unit2 brought up the Clinton's and questioned the uranium claims.

---