Anything yet on Trump Russia collusion?
- Thread starter MegaPoke
- Start date
It's as much of a smoking gun as all the hand wringers in the world have on Trump, et al, currently.
It;'s a board hazard. Harry had one this morning that had me wheezing.
He makes a good point here:
Not really.
A). Is anyone saying that firing Comey is "100% proof of a coverup"? Or, is the narrative more that it seems suspicious?
B). Has anyone at all claimed that Hillary's server and missing emails were "standard operating procedure"?
C). Isn't is possible that both things were bad and should not have happened?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/five-questions-about-the-clintons-and-a-uranium-company
What's weird is that there are easily traceable links from Canadians to Clintons camp all the way to the top that the libs just stare right through.
What's weird is that there are easily traceable links from Canadians to Clintons camp all the way to the top that the libs just stare right through.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/21/e...d-member-of-firm-linked-to-russian-investors/
Do you still labor under the delusion that "politifact" is in fact an unbiased and non-partisan arbiter?
And your link doesn't work and my link had nothing to do with Trump's tweets.
He's John Podesta's brother and John co-founded the Podesta Group. They're tied to Clinton, of that there is no doubt.
Again, my story is form the NY Times, from Spring 2015. No mention of D. Trump's tweets referencing the matter.
And again, you're missing the larger point.
John Podesta hasn't worked there since 1993.
Podesta Group Clients:
BP, Lockheed Martin, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Duke Energy, Raytheon, Albania, Republic or Georgia, Kenya
In 2010, Hillary Clinton, as secretary of state, was one of nine federal agency heads to sign off on Russia’s purchase of a controlling stake in Uranium One, an international mining company headquartered in Canada with operations in several U.S. states. It was part of a regular process for approving international deals involving strategic assets, such as uranium, that could have implications for national security. Uranium One’s U.S. mines produced about 11 percent of the country’s total uranium production in 2014, according to Oilprice.com.
But even with its control of Uranium One, Russia cannot export the material from the United States. Russia was likely more interested in Uranium One’s assets in Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium producer.
As PolitiFact and others have detailed, some investors with an interest in making the Uranium One deal go through have a long-time relationship with Bill Clinton and have donated to the Clinton Foundation. But there’s no concrete evidence those relationships or donations helped make the deal go through. Most of the donations occurred before Hillary Clinton could have known she would become secretary of state. And again, the secretary of state was one of nine agency heads that had input into the final decision, which ultimately lay with President Barack Obama.
Do you still labor under the delusion that "The Daily Caller" provides you with unbiased, factually accurate stories?
Again, in which case is there more "concrete" evidence? What about the way that Bill and Hillary Clinton have ever operated would lead one to assume that everything was above board.
Which is fine if you are just operating as a shill or a propagandist, but I always thought you had some concern for the truth.
Tony is the brother of John who was the campaign manager for Hillary.
Paul Manafort was the campaign manager for Trump.
Russia pumped an assload of money into Joule when Jon Podesta was a board memember.
It's funny that you're able to make yourself feel really good about reams of evidence if they're on your team.
It's funny that you're able to make yourself feel really good about reams of evidence if they're on your team.
I don't feel good about any of this BS.
I have stated, many times, that I am in favor of an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
It is funny that you, a guy I consider to be very intelligent, can so easily fall for both the [There is nothing but imagination behind the idea that Trump/his team have ties to Russia] and the [It wasn't Trump, it was the Clintons] narratives.
Why not investigate both claims and find out what's what?
I don't think claiming definitively that to this point there is nothing to the claims is quite the same logical stretch, but I get your point.
I think it's more of a Schrödinger's cat conundrum - with two sides debating the different possible fates of the cat. If the validity of the Russian collusion claims are analogous to the cat, my basic position is, if that pussy was ever alive we would have heard it make noise by now, and it's been in that box for like 9 months. So if it's not dead, I'm pretty sure the cat is more likely to be dead with every passing day. Stupid cat.
That pussy has been busting people's eardrums for several months now, and it started meowing back in 2015.
Probably not the first time you've been too optimistic about seeing a pussy. Cat.
