Jimbo wrote: Bill Clinton had received $500,000 for a speech in Russia
Nothing illegal about that whatsoever.
and that the Uranium One deal was mid-wived by HRC
It wasn't.
Next!
Jimbo wrote: Bill Clinton had received $500,000 for a speech in Russia
and that the Uranium One deal was mid-wived by HRC
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
toomanyhatz wrote:Jimbo wrote: Bill Clinton had received $500,000 for a speech in Russia
Nothing illegal about that whatsoever.and that the Uranium One deal was mid-wived by HRC
It wasn't.
Next!
From Snopes - 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 insofar as it involved the transfer of ownership of a material deemed important to national security — uranium, amounting to one-fifth of U.S. reserves (a fraction re-estimated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at closer to one-tenth of the United States’ uranium production capacity in 2017) — thus requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which the U.S. Secretary of State sits.
Jimbo wrote:mid-wived by HRC
HRC was involved
to dismiss Bill's speech as a nothing burger
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
Jimbo wrote:While there was the pee pee tape, the Trump Tower meeting, Wikileaks, etc., all "evidence" of Trump colluding with the Russians, there were also the openly known facts that Bill Clinton had received $500,000 for a speech in Russia and that the Uranium One deal was mid-wived by HRC, but these actual events were forgotten, ignored or dismissed by the MSM and HRC supporters under the onslaught of incriminating anti-Trump reporting. Well Hillary supporters, theyre baaaack. This article is in The Hill and all over the alternative news sites.The case for Russia collusion … against the Democrats
By John Solomon — 02/10/19
... As secretary of State, Hillary Clinton worked with Russian leaders, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and then-President Dmitri Medvedev, to create U.S. technology partnerships with Moscow’s version of Silicon Valley, a sprawling high-tech campus known as Skolkovo.
Clinton’s handprint was everywhere on the 2009-2010 project, the tip of a diplomatic spear to reboot U.S.-Russian relations after years of hostility prompted by Vladimir Putin’s military action against the former Soviet republic and now U.S. ally Georgia. ... https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house ... -democrats
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
NBC News
Senate has uncovered no direct evidence of conspiracy between Trump campaign and Russia
"We were never going to find a contract signed in blood saying, 'Hey Vlad, we're going to collude,'" one Democratic aide said.
Feb. 13, 2019, 12:21 AM GMT+9
By Ken Dilanian
WASHINGTON — After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016 election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats and Republicans on the committee....
Russiagate created a lot of damage.
The alleged Russian influence campaign that never happened was used to install censorship on social media. It was used to undermine the election of progressive Democrats. The weapon salesmen used it to push for more NATO aggression against Russia. Maria Butina, an innocent Russian woman interested in good relation with the United States, was held in solitary confinement (recommended) until she signed a paper which claims that she was involved in a conspiracy.
Charlie O. wrote:
Jimbo wrote:BOMBSHELL!
When you read that a Congressional committee hasn't yet found "direct evidence" of something, understand that *all they're saying from an evidentiary standpoint* is that no one has *confessed* yet nor has any *explicit contract* been found—neither of which things anyone expected.
Any attorney—rather than a journalist pretending to know what the legal terms they're using mean—will tell you that substantial evidence of collusion has been found and the only question is what the standard of proof is to be set at and if you think that standard has been met.
When GOP Senate Intel chair Richard Burr was asked that question, he said Americans would have to read the report the Senate eventually creates—likely a long time from now—and will then have to decide for themselves whether it's collusion.* That's what he actually said to CBS.
What journalists like @KenDilanianNBC did—instead of explaining how evidence works, and what Burr's words meant—was take a quote in which Burr was saying there'd been no confession or explicit contracts found yet, even though that's *self-evident, predictable, and irrelevant*.
If you or I were in Ken's shoes—and we were writing about the most important story of our times—and we were using legal terms we didn't understand, we'd make sure we explained to readers *exactly what we were saying and what we weren't*. Unfortunately, that's not media today.
No attorney with criminal law experience came into the Trump-Russia probe believing one of the conspirators would confess to Congress or that an explicit contract would be found. That absurd standard was set by non-attorney Trump supporters and was then *adopted by the media*.
There may be confessions in the Russia probe before it's over, but they will come *via Mueller's charges/deals*, not Congress—and no explicit contract for a conspiracy like this would ever be created, let alone found. We knew all this two years ago. The media pretended not to.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
Snarfyguy wrote:Jimbo wrote:BOMBSHELL!
When you read that a Congressional committee hasn't yet found "direct evidence" of something, understand that *all they're saying from an evidentiary standpoint* is that no one has *confessed* yet nor has any *explicit contract* been found—neither of which things anyone expected.
Any attorney—rather than a journalist pretending to know what the legal terms they're using mean—will tell you that substantial evidence of collusion has been found and the only question is what the standard of proof is to be set at and if you think that standard has been met.
When GOP Senate Intel chair Richard Burr was asked that question, he said Americans would have to read the report the Senate eventually creates—likely a long time from now—and will then have to decide for themselves whether it's collusion.* That's what he actually said to CBS.
What journalists like @KenDilanianNBC did—instead of explaining how evidence works, and what Burr's words meant—was take a quote in which Burr was saying there'd been no confession or explicit contracts found yet, even though that's *self-evident, predictable, and irrelevant*.
If you or I were in Ken's shoes—and we were writing about the most important story of our times—and we were using legal terms we didn't understand, we'd make sure we explained to readers *exactly what we were saying and what we weren't*. Unfortunately, that's not media today.
No attorney with criminal law experience came into the Trump-Russia probe believing one of the conspirators would confess to Congress or that an explicit contract would be found. That absurd standard was set by non-attorney Trump supporters and was then *adopted by the media*.
There may be confessions in the Russia probe before it's over, but they will come *via Mueller's charges/deals*, not Congress—and no explicit contract for a conspiracy like this would ever be created, let alone found. We knew all this two years ago. The media pretended not to.
* That's actually pretty mind-blowing, akin to telling people to make their own medical diagnoses.
more here: https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status ... 6918653953
Footy wrote:
The Who / Jimi Hendrix Experience Saville Theatre, London Jan '67
. Got Jimi's autograph after the show and went on to see him several times that year
Count Machuki wrote:WHY WASN'T IT AN "EMERGENCY' MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO??
If it's such a goddamned big deal.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.
Count Machuki wrote:WHY WASN'T IT AN "EMERGENCY' MONTHS AND MONTHS AGO??
If it's such a goddamned big deal.
Fuck!
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
mentalist (slight return) wrote:Please be marking yourself safe from The Emergency. We are here for you.
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.