Democrat/media talking points
- Thread starter lovethempokes
- Start date
I didn't use the word illegal.
She got 140MM from Russian interests.
Tell me about that.
We're obviously bad at math.
I blame the Russians for infiltrating our education system.
All things Russian are bad. Thats the lens right.
Look at your team through that lens. Crimea, line in sand, hacking, Clinton Foundation donations.
What do you see?
I'm still trying to figure out what 140million you are talking about. Google isn't any help.
Are you looking on trumpisanazi.com?
It's been in the public domain for a long time.
There's plenty of info for you to address the rest.
It's been in the public domain for a long time.
There's plenty of info for you to address the rest.
I'd be really curious as to what you used as your search terms?
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-clintons-russia-trump-688592
Says right here >140 MM of evil Russian money went into the currently under investigation Clinton Foundation.
Just a coincidence that the contributions came from the same people awarded uranium rights.
Anyway, why would a person with eyes on the presidency do business with the Russians that are obviously out to kill our democracy?
I'll help.
You just found out Mueller found out a Russian gave 140MMto the Trump Foundation.
Write those feelings then change the names.
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-clintons-russia-trump-688592
Says right here >140 MM of evil Russian money went into the currently under investigation Clinton Foundation.
Just a coincidence that the contributions came from the same people awarded uranium rights.
Anyway, why would a person with eyes on the presidency do business with the Russians that are obviously out to kill our democracy?
I'll help.
You just found out Mueller found out a Russian gave 140MMto the Trump Foundation.
Write those feelings then change the names.
So Obama caused Russia to annex Crimea? There's no Russia/Crimea history before 2009? I'm not getting your response.
Huh?
I googled 140 million instead of 145 million like an idiot.
Of the 145 million 131.5 came from a Canadian named Frank Giustra who sold his stake in UrAsia to a Canadian company Uranium One a year and a half before Clinton became secretary of state and three years before Uranium One was sold to Russian interests.
Let's ask @davidallen how long these deals take to put together.
Suggesting that Clinton couldn't have her fingerprints on a deal that came to fruition a year and a half after she was replaced with a like minded person isn't very logical.
Suggesting that Clinton couldn't have her fingerprints on a deal that came to fruition a year and a half after she was replaced with a like minded person isn't very logical.
Wasn't Bill Clinton hanging around with Frank Giustra around the time that UrAsia scored a really big deal in Kazakhstan in 2005? I heard that Bill really liked Frank's plane. I also heard Bill and Hillary really liked Frank's donation to the Clinton Foundation after the UrAsia deal was landed.
Yes the 131 million dollar donor sold out to U1 18 months before Hillary took office.
I'll admit that it does look like Bill got Frank a good deal in Kazakhstan and Frank showed his appreciation.
Believe it or not lots of things that Obama is ultimately responsible for had a history prior to his administration. The Obama administration's policy towards Ukraine caused Russia to annex Crimea.
Yeah, it's cool to have your own plane to give WJC a hand. Nothing wrong with any of that. I was a bit surprised that Bill and Frank lied about Bill's involvement until it was pointed out to them that photographs of the meeting Bill helped with existed. Like we don't all know the Clintons peddle influence. They literally turned the Lincoln Bedroom and White House into a DNC fundraising AirBnB.
The only thing that really irked me about the Clintons and Giustra was the The Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership. The Clintons seemed to have had a difficult time abiding by the ethics agreement they signed with the Obama administration. They claimed the Canadian charity is a completely separate charity and wasn't bound by the agreement (technically true), but it looks odd when the Canadian charity uses the same logo, gives most of its money to the Clinton Foundation, and had the chairman of the Clinton Foundation on its own board. I'm sure money from foreign executives was never routed from the Canadian charity to the Clinton Foundation while those same executives had business interests with the State Department.
Proof, not at all. But I think it is more likely than not. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-victoria-nuland-wades-into-ukraine-turmoil-over-yanukovich/
Just that the revolution was organic, which is hard to swallow given the leaked Nuland calls.
I haven't read any takes on the annexation that doesn't take it as a direct result of the revolution.
Are you aware of what the EU demanded as "reforms" from Ukraine in the Association Agreement?
Hard to believe that people would organically revolt in response to it's government not ceding its sovereignty
Maybe. Or maybe they had enough of their pro Russian president and actually wanted the reforms demanded by the EU.
I was actually asking how I'm bolstering your point though.
By posting that you didn't think the protest was organic? If it wasn't organic, who was protesting?
Yes, by posting that the thing the people were protesting for was a ridiculous ceding of sovereignty.
My position that the protests were fomented by the West and in particular State Department funded (and directed) NGOs. The fact that the deal they were protesting for was a bad deal reinforces my position, it doesn't weaken it.
Similar threads
