2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

**piwanoi** · 16-02-2016, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

RP please be patient Harry's going to bring forth evidence that she had SFA to do with the Uranium deal , ain't that right Harry ?

It's a shame that one has to waste one's time posting FACTS to debunk the rubbish you two post, but since there's more than one of you idiots I'll post more than the link.

The basic facts: This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch.

A number of investors in Uranium One gave donations to the Clinton Foundation during the time the sale was being considered (between 2008 and 2010), in part through the participation of Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate who was a large donor to the Foundation and who had controlled a company that eventually bought Uranium One (according to the Times, Giustra sold his interest in the company in 2007, before the Rosatom deal).

In addition, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 in 2010 to give a speech to a Russian bank with ties to the Russian government. The U.S. government eventually approved the deal in 2010.

What's the allegation against Hillary Clinton? The reason this is a story is the potential that there was some quid pro quo involved: that in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation and/or the speech Bill Clinton gave in Russia, Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to make approval of this sale happen. It need not be explicit, but at the very least there has to be a connection between donations and official action that Clinton took.

What's the evidence for that allegation? There isn't any, at least not yet. The only evidence is timing: people who would benefit from the sale made donations to the foundation at around the same time the matter was before the government.

What's the evidence in Clinton's favor? Even if Clinton had wanted to make sure the sale was approved, it wouldn't have been possible for her to do it on her own. CFIUS is made up of not only the Secretary of State, but also the secretaries of Treasury, Justice, Homeland Security, Commerce, Defense, and Energy, as well as the heads of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of Labor are non-voting members, and CFIUS's work is also observed by representatives of other agencies like the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget. The idea that Clinton could have convinced all those officials and all those departments to change their position on the sale, even if she had wanted to, borders on the absurd.

Furthermore, the official who was the State Department's representative on CFIUS at the time, Jose Hernandez, told Time magazine that Clinton did not participate in the evaluation of this deal: "Secretary Clinton never intervened with me on any CFIUS matter," he said.

So now we've laid that Clinton Cash bollocks to rest, you can stop trying to spin your little fairy story as facts.

Everything we know about the Hillary Clinton-Russia-Uranium 'scandal' - Business Insider

According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing

and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donars ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient

**harrybarracuda** · 16-02-2016, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by piwanoi

According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing

and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donars ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient

That article is a year old. What investigation?

Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?

**piwanoi** · 16-02-2016, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing

and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donors ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient

That article is a year old. What investigation?

Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?

So the NYT and NYP has issued a public apology for dragging her name through the shit then? , and just who was responsible for not disclosing donations from Uranium One thus breaking Hilarious's agreement ? as this was not disclosed in your article .

**piwanoi** · 16-02-2016, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing

and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donars ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient

That article is a year old. What investigation?

Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?

What Investigations Harry ? , take your pick

Articles: Three Strikes and You're Out, Hillary Oh what a tangled web she weaves

**RPETER65** · 16-02-2016, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing

and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donars ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient

That article is a year old. What investigation?

Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?

The fact is she did not disclose the donation,and that is not the only donation not reported.

**RPETER65** · 16-02-2016, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing

and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donars ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient

That article is a year old. What investigation?

Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?

What Investigations Harry ? , take your pick

Articles: Three Strikes and You're Out, Hillary Oh what a tangled web she weaves

Posting this link for Harry or Snubbles is a major waste of time, neither one will allow themselves to process the information as it goes against their core beliefs.

I cannot remember a political family involved in as many scandles as the Clintons it just never stops.

**harrybarracuda** · 16-02-2016, 03:45 PM

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

According to your article the jury is still out as Investigations are still ongoing

and also in your article and I quote , When Clinton became sec of state she made an agreement with the administration to publicly disclose all its donars ,but donations from Uranium one was not disclosed , how convenient

That article is a year old. What investigation?

Or are you like the coffin dodger and believe in every word you hear on Focks News?

What Investigations Harry ? , take your pick

Articles: Three Strikes and You're Out, Hillary Oh what a tangled web she weaves

Yes, another feeble trick, try and conflate one subject with another one.

There is no investigation of the Clinton Foundation nor of Hillary's involvement in the Uranium decision. Because one was not needed, for the reasons given above.

The story is rubbish.

The undeclared donations are irrelevant as they do not relate to any State Department business.

Fairy stories off right wing websites that name other right wing websites are still fairy stories.

The "investigation" into Huma Abedin is about the fact that the State Dept. kept paying her when she was on maternity leave. The DoJ refused to treat this as a criminal matter, big fucking surprise.

I'm afraid you're like all republican squealing, angry old white men.

You squeal everything the right wing publicity machine tells you to squeal, but the truth is you're the only idiots that buy it.

And since the Democrats were never going to get your vote anyway, it's really just a fucking comedy show for the outside observer.

"Emailgate" will end up like "Benghazigate", just another huge waste of the peoples' money to try and satisfy the never ending republitard addiction to fake scandals, witch hunts and kangaroo courts.

**harrybarracuda** · 16-02-2016, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I cannot remember a political family involved in as many scandles as the Clintons it just never stops.

That's because (1) You only ever get your news from Fox and (2) Your memory is failing with old age.

**bsnub** · 16-02-2016, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Posting this link for Harry or Snubbles is a major waste of time, neither one will allow themselves to process the information as it goes against their core beliefs.

You are a buffoon who has no idea what my core beliefs are you imbecile. I dont respond to articles posted on trash propaganda right wing blogs. It is a waste of time. More about the website that piwi used as a "source";

American Thinker (affectionately nicknamed "American Stinker" by its fans) is an online wingnut publication that's more or less the poor man's WND or Newsmax. They've published articles by such conservative luminaries as Noel Sheppard (NewsBusters) and Pamela Geller and such climate experts as S. Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, as well as an interview with (and hagiography of) white nationalist Jared Taylor.[2]

The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, and pseudoscience. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, "creeping sharia," red-baiting, and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism.

American Thinker - RationalWiki

No surprise there. American thinker my ass.

**RPETER65** · 16-02-2016, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I cannot remember a political family involved in as many scandles as the Clintons it just never stops.

That's because (1) You only ever get your news from Fox and (2) Your memory is failing with old age.

Would you like to post a few rather than post meaningless crap?

**RPETER65** · 16-02-2016, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Posting this link for Harry or Snubbles is a major waste of time, neither one will allow themselves to process the information as it goes against their core beliefs.

You are a buffoon who has no idea what my core beliefs are you imbecile. I dont respond to articles posted on trash propaganda right wing blogs. It is a waste of time. More about the website that piwi used as a "source";

American Thinker (affectionately nicknamed "American Stinker" by its fans) is an online wingnut publication that's more or less the poor man's WND or Newsmax. They've published articles by such conservative luminaries as Noel Sheppard (NewsBusters) and Pamela Geller and such climate experts as S. Fred Singer and Christopher Monckton, as well as an interview with (and hagiography of) white nationalist Jared Taylor.[2]

The magazine, of course, is chock-full of right-wing conspiracy theories, woo, and pseudoscience. On the conspiracy side, they promote birtherism, "creeping sharia," red-baiting, and still occasionally prattle on about Vince Foster. On the science side, they concentrate on creationism and global warming denialism.

American Thinker - RationalWiki

No surprise there. American thinker my ass.

Could you find a more libtard website to quote from?

**bsnub** · 16-02-2016, 05:10 PM

^ You can not deny one of the statements in that post. They are all true. This is the level it comes down to when you post garbage. Stop posting up trash sources.

**AntRobertson** · 16-02-2016, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ You can not deny one of the statements in that post. They are all true. This is the level it comes down to when you post garbage. Stop posting up trash sources.

That's the rub of it. If I have an opinion on something I want it to be correct (naturally enough). Therefore I check to make sure there are facts to back it up. Doubly so if I read something that does actually accord with an opinion - I check to see that it's at least legitimate. That's not to say that I'm never wrong/always right just that if I am wrong it's because of a misunderstanding or mistake on my part.

Wingnuts on the other hand just willingly swallow and regurgitate garbage no matter how patently idiotic it is. It is almost as though they completely lack any intellectual integrity or curiosity. They want something to be true so - in their minds - it becomes true. It's bizarre.

And all this 'refute my post/cut 'n pasted blog/opinion piece/vdo that I posted in #1234' is just a feeble attempt to spam and hide from the fact that they can barely articulate an opinion of their own much less defend it. After all, how can you defend your opinion when it's not actually yours and you are just parroting right wing echo-chamber dribble.

**harrybarracuda** · 16-02-2016, 05:35 PM

It's a very classic Alex Jones trick.

He'll come out with some shyte like "The government are putting death rays in street lamps, that's confirmed, you can look it up on the Internet".

And lo and behold, if you were to google "Government putting death rays in street lamps" you'll find any number of nutjob wanker websites that have copied his bullshit story off Infowars.com.

But the nutters that look it up think he's actually reporting a news story, rather than replicating the sort of bullshit repeater and Piwi recycle.

**AntRobertson** · 16-02-2016, 05:43 PM

I really don't get it. How can people just be so dumb and wrong all the time over things within their power to at least check, verify and confirm. Isn't it in the least bit embarrassing??

**piwanoi** · 16-02-2016, 06:09 PM

Poor Hilarious, she's getting really pillared these days , is there no end to it I ask myself

Blog: Hillary is in trouble when Limbaugh and Dowd agree never mind the dynamic duo Harry and Bsnub will be out there singing her praises as suitable material for POTUS

**chassamui** · 16-02-2016, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I really don't get it. How can people just be so dumb and wrong all the time over things within their power to at least check, verify and confirm. Isn't it in the least bit embarrassing??

Piwiannoy has 7ks post on the open forum and probably 3x that on dog house threads. Not only is he not embarrassed, he still thinks he's right!
Peters is convinced he's an erudite wordsmith of some repute, but he makes basic spelling errors on every other post. He can't see how he could be wrong either!

**harrybarracuda** · 16-02-2016, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I really don't get it. How can people just be so dumb and wrong all the time over things within their power to at least check, verify and confirm. Isn't it in the least bit embarrassing??

They wouldn't be so vociferous in a public setting; they'd have the pissed ripped out of them, and rightly so.

**piwanoi** · 16-02-2016, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I really don't get it. How can people just be so dumb and wrong all the time over things within their power to at least check, verify and confirm. Isn't it in the least bit embarrassing??

They wouldn't be so vociferous in a public setting; they'd have the pissed ripped out of them, and rightly so.

So according to you no one at this moment in time is investigating Hilarious? so glad that little lie has been put to bed The FBI?s Two-Pronged Investigation of Hillary Clinton -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

**harrybarracuda** · 16-02-2016, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I really don't get it. How can people just be so dumb and wrong all the time over things within their power to at least check, verify and confirm. Isn't it in the least bit embarrassing??

They wouldn't be so vociferous in a public setting; they'd have the pissed ripped out of them, and rightly so.

So according to you no one at this moment in time is investigating Hilarious? so glad that little lie has been put to bed The FBI?s Two-Pronged Investigation of Hillary Clinton -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

We were discussing the issue of conflict of interest over a Uranium deal.

This has nothing to do with the FBI or State investigations.

It's a stupid thing to do to try and change the subject with me, especially when I've put you straight once already:

Yes, another feeble trick, try and conflate one subject with another one.

There is no investigation of the Clinton Foundation nor of Hillary's involvement in the Uranium decision. Because one was not needed, for the reasons given above.

You realise that your stupidity is quite transparent, don't you?

**RPETER65** · 16-02-2016, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

^ You can not deny one of the statements in that post. They are all true. This is the level it comes down to when you post garbage. Stop posting up trash sources.

Still waiting for you to debunk the Clinton scandals in the video I posted.

**RPETER65** · 16-02-2016, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by chassamui

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I really don't get it. How can people just be so dumb and wrong all the time over things within their power to at least check, verify and confirm. Isn't it in the least bit embarrassing??

Piwiannoy has 7ks post on the open forum and probably 3x that on dog house threads. Not only is he not embarrassed, he still thinks he's right!
Peters is convinced he's an erudite wordsmith of some repute, but he makes basic spelling errors on every other post. He can't see how he could be wrong either!

What does spelling errors have to do with anything?

**piwanoi** · 16-02-2016, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

I really don't get it. How can people just be so dumb and wrong all the time over things within their power to at least check, verify and confirm. Isn't it in the least bit embarrassing??

They wouldn't be so vociferous in a public setting; they'd have the pissed ripped out of them, and rightly so.

So according to you no one at this moment in time is investigating Hilarious? so glad that little lie has been put to bed The FBI?s Two-Pronged Investigation of Hillary Clinton -- Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

We were discussing the issue of conflict of interest over a Uranium deal.

This has nothing to do with the FBI or State investigations.

It's a stupid thing to do to try and change the subject with me, especially when I've put you straight once already:

Yes, another feeble trick, try and conflate one subject with another one.

There is no investigation of the Clinton Foundation nor of Hillary's involvement in the Uranium decision. Because one was not needed, for the reasons given above.

You realise that your stupidity is quite transparent, don't you?

I am not changing the subject at all, you asked which investigation and I answered in my post 4079 take your pick

**chassamui** · 16-02-2016, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

What does spelling errors have to do with anything?

You claimed elsewhere that you were an accomplished writer, or words to that effect. Even one as dim as you must know that statement to be false.

**piwanoi** · 16-02-2016, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

The sources credibility will be in the facts or non facts of there videos or articles

If there was any credible evidence why was he never charged or prosecuted? The Bush administration tried and failed to find any evidence. Your bogus conspiracy sites are just a laughable joke like yourself.

There are no facts you moron. This is the last time I am going to waste my time responding on this dead horse issue.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Becides when I post an opinion piece it is because I agree with the opinion so it is also my opinion stated better than I could have stated it.

Oh good so you admit that you are a moron.

No I admit to nothing except not being skilled at writing, never desired to be a journalist.

Yeah I'm the same RP but to some a simple spelling mistake is a hanging offence

Thread: 2016 Democratic US Presidential Candidates

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions