Anthony Weiner's Laptop......

[Zam-Zam]

What is the issue if not classified info on an unsecure laptop?

It's so easy, I don't see you miss it.

Imagine you come home and find your front door open. You're not sure what is going on, so you call the Police. And hour later, no police. Two hours later, no police. A day passes, then two days. Then a week.

Finally, 8 days later,the Police show up. It turns out there is nothing missing from your house, no apparent crime.

One might be tempted to say "Since there was nothing missing from the home, it's no big deal that the Police didn't respond in a timely manner. Any excuse they offer should be accepted without question".

That, of course, would be wrong. 100% wrong.


If you still fail to comprehend, that's okay. Plenty of others will without any difficulty.

 

[middleview]

The CGI has never been anything but a slush fund for the Clinton's that allowed them to live as heads of state when they were no longer (thank god) heads of state. The correlation between the Hillary as Sec. of State, donations to the charity and Billy Boys speaking fee's is undeniable.

(If Ivanka was Sec. of State and Donald suddenly got 500k to speak in Moscow from a bank with a major holding in a deal that was just approved you would be screaming bloody murder. You would even be screaming louder when you learned that the FBI and (Obama's) DOJ kept an investigation from congress that had to do with a Russian kickback scheme that had to do with them gaining energy assets (such as a Uranium company).... and you would be right to be screaming.......but since it's the Democrats you have convinced yourself there is nothing...........shocking...)

The investigation into the Uranium One deal is still ongoing. Good luck.

Do you have any evidence that either of the Clinton's received any money from the foundation?

Do you know how many speeches around the globe Bill Clinton was paid $500k for? I am pretty sure it is 11. That was his going rate.

Have you noticed any post of mine complaining about republicans making money by giving speeches? Is it because none of them are? George W. Bush has been paid to speak at over 200 events and has earned between $20m and $35m since leaving office. He currently gets $175k per speech.

https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

President of the Learning Annex, Bill Zinker, said that Trump is by far the best speaker with the largest draw. Zinker, pays Trump anywhere from $1 million to $1.5 million dollars an appearance, adding that Trump attracts massive audiences.

He’s worth every penny. I’ve been doing this for 30 years. There is no better business speaker than Donald Trump. He attracts the biggest crowds in the world.

Trump received $1.5 million for each of the eighteen speeches he gave between 2006 and 2007.

http://samuel-warde.com/2016/07/think-clinton-got-big-speaking-fees-heres-trump-gets/

 

[middleview]

It's so easy, I don't see you miss it.

Imagine you come home and find your front door open. You're not sure what is going on, so you call the Police. And hour later, no police. Two hours later, no police. A day passes, then two days. Then a week.

Finally, 8 days later,the Police show up. It turns out there is nothing missing from your house, no apparent crime.

One might be tempted to say "Since there was nothing missing from the home, it's no big deal that the Police didn't respond in a timely manner. Any excuse they offer should be accepted without question".

That, of course, would be wrong. 100% wrong.


If you still fail to comprehend, that's okay. Plenty of others will without any difficulty.

Shitty analogy:

The FBI has a laptop as part of an investigation and subject to a warrant to search Anthony's emails.

They find copies of Clinton's emails. They don't have a warrant for that. They apply for a new warrant, get one and now can review those emails....

Does it matter if the warrant was issued one day, one week or one month later? Nope.

Far different from investigating a crime in which the perpetrator might just get away.

 

[Sickofleft]

Do you have any evidence that either of the Clinton's received any money from the foundation?

Do you know how many speeches around the globe Bill Clinton was paid $500k for? I am pretty sure it is 11. That was his going rate.

Have you noticed any post of mine complaining about republicans making money by giving speeches? Is it because none of them are? George W. Bush has been paid to speak at over 200 events and has earned between $20m and $35m since leaving office. He currently gets $175k per speech.

https://www.thoughtco.com/former-presidents-speaking-fees-3368127

President of the Learning Annex, Bill Zinker, said that Trump is by far the best speaker with the largest draw. Zinker, pays Trump anywhere from $1 million to $1.5 million dollars an appearance, adding that Trump attracts massive audiences.

He’s worth every penny. I’ve been doing this for 30 years. There is no better business speaker than Donald Trump. He attracts the biggest crowds in the world.

Trump received $1.5 million for each of the eighteen speeches he gave between 2006 and 2007.

http://samuel-warde.com/2016/07/think-clinton-got-big-speaking-fees-heres-trump-gets/

That was not his going rate, his going rate was much lower then that prior to his wife new job. I also think it's comical your defense of him is bringing up how much a former TV personality made speaking prior to becoming President.....

Which leads to me to ask, do you even understand what it is you are talking about?

 

[middleview]

(If Ivanka was Sec. of State and Donald suddenly got 500k to speak in Moscow from a bank with a major holding in a deal that was just approved you would be screaming bloody murder. You would even be screaming louder when you learned that the FBI and (Obama's) DOJ kept an investigation from congress that had to do with a Russian kickback scheme that had to do with them gaining energy assets (such as a Uranium company).... and you would be right to be screaming.......but since it's the Democrats you have convinced yourself there is nothing...........shocking...)

The investigation into the Uranium One deal is still ongoing. Good luck.

Because it is obvious that you are underinformed here...let me help you....

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The committee can’t actually stop a sale from going through — it can only approve a sale. The president is the only one who can stop a sale, if the committee or any one member “recommends suspension or prohibition of the transaction,” according to guidelines issued by the Treasury Department in December 2008 after the department adopted its final rule a month earlier.

For this and other reasons, we have written that Trump is wrong to claim that Clinton “gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States” to Russia. Clinton could have objected — as could the eight other voting members — but that objection alone wouldn’t have stopped the sale of the stake of Uranium One to Rosatom.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

Bill Clinton spoke in Moscow in June of 2010. The Rosatom deal was approved in October.

 

[middleview]

That was not his going rate, his going rate was much lower then that prior to his wife new job. I also think it's comical your defense of him is bringing up how much a former TV personality made speaking prior to becoming President.....

Which leads to me to ask, do you even understand what it is you are talking about?

Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:

1. 2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton’s presidential library foundation);
   
   
2. 2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins’ brand);
   
   
3. 2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);
   
   
4. 2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);
   
   
5. 2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
   
   
6. 2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
   
   
7. 2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);
   
   
8. 2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);
   
   
9. 2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);
   
   
10. 2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);
    
    
11. 2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
    
    
12. 2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
    
    
13. 2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).
    

 

[marvin martian]

Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:

1. 2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton’s presidential library foundation);
   
   
2. 2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins’ brand);
   
   
3. 2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);
   
   
4. 2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);
   
   
5. 2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
   
   
6. 2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
   
   
7. 2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);
   
   
8. 2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);
   
   
9. 2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);
   
   
10. 2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);
    
    
11. 2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
    
    
12. 2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
    
    
13. 2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).

Russia!

 

[Sickofleft]

Russia!

That bastard was colluding!!!!!!

 

[Sickofleft]

Here’s a list of all the speeches for which Clinton received a fee of $500,000 or higher, including the year, location, host and actual fee:

1. 2003 -- Japan, $500,000 Sakura Asset Management (Japanese finance corporation) (A note: This speech was canceled, but the fee went to Clinton’s presidential library foundation);
   
   
2. 2008 -- California, $500,000, Power Within (life coach Anthony Robbins’ brand);
   
   
3. 2010 -- Russia, $500,000, Renaissance Capital (Russian finance corporation);
   
   
4. 2010 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Novo Nordisk (Danish pharmaceutical company);
   
   
5. 2011 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
   
   
6. 2011 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
   
   
7. 2011 -- Netherlands, $600,000, Achmea (Dutch finance corporation);
   
   
8. 2011 -- China, $550,000, Huatuo CEO Forum (business conference);
   
   
9. 2011 -- United Arab Emirates, $500,000, Abu Dhabi Global Environmental Data Initiative (international environmental information organization);
   
   
10. 2011 -- Hong Kong, $750,000, Ericsson (Swedish multinational communications technology company);
    
    
11. 2012 -- Nigeria, $700,000, THISDAY (newspaper);
    
    
12. 2012 -- Austria, $500,000, Center for Global Dialogue and Cooperation (Austrian nongovernmental organization);
    
    
13. 2012 -- Italy, $500,000, Technogym (fitness equipment manufacturer).

Ok, do you also have a list of how much these people donated to the Clinton Foundation?

You should watch this:

Unless you think this guy just made that all up?

 

[Zam-Zam]

Shitty analogy:


Does it matter if the warrant was issued one day, one week or one month later? Nope.

Of course it does.

 

[middleview]

That bastard was colluding!!!!!!

Look up the word collusion sometime....

 

[Sickofleft]

The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

The Attorney General..... you would think he would have known of a FBI and DOJ investigation into a Russian Kickback scheme involving the energy sector but...............

Apparently never said a word........Odd don't ya think?

 

[Sickofleft]

Look up the word collusion sometime....

The best advice you could give yourself and the rest of your godforsaken party.

 

[middleview]

Of course it does.

Why? Did any of the emails disappear? Did someone escape the country? Statute of Limitations reached? Is it better to look at the emails when they are fresh?

 

[middleview]

The Attorney General..... you would think he would have known of a FBI and DOJ investigation into a Russian Kickback scheme involving the energy sector but...............

Apparently never said a word........Odd don't ya think?

Because there wasn't one?

 

[Sickofleft]

Because there wasn't one?

That's your problem, there was one. In fact, I will admit that was a great point for Democrats to bring up, that the deal was approved by a committee that Clinton did not sit on until...........

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355937-fbi-informant-blocked-from-telling-congress-about-russia-nuclear

https://nypost.com/2017/10/17/fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-controversial-nuclear-deal/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering/

 

[middleview]

That's your problem, there was one. In fact, I will admit that was a great point for Democrats to bring up, that the deal was approved by a committee that Clinton did not sit on until...........

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/355937-fbi-informant-blocked-from-telling-congress-about-russia-nuclear

https://nypost.com/2017/10/17/fbi-uncovered-russian-bribery-plot-before-controversial-nuclear-deal/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering/

Hillary did not actually sit on the committee. A state department rep did and he said she never talked to him about any issue related to the committee.

Your links all show that an individual working for Rosatom was involved in an illegal bribary and kickback scheme with the company that transported uranium to US nuclear plants.

So? The committee, if they knew of that individuals illegal acts, may have recommended killing the deal...but they didn't. Can you show that Hillary had anything at all to do with that? If not then what else ya got?

 

[Sickofleft]

Hillary did not actually sit on the committee. A state department rep did and he said she never talked to him about any issue related to the committee.

Your links all show that an individual working for Rosatom was involved in an illegal bribary and kickback scheme with the company that transported uranium to US nuclear plants.

So? The committee, if they knew of that individuals illegal acts, may have recommended killing the deal...but they didn't. Can you show that Hillary had anything at all to do with that? If not then what else ya got?

You make me sad.

The Individual was an FBI informant one that was subsequently threatened by the Obama Administration if he went public. Don't believe me? His attorney is highly respected (unlike a bankrupt porn lawyer for example) but I digress.

From one of the links that you obviously did not bother to read:

Think about this: The investigation of Russian racketeering in the American energy sector was the kind of spectacular success over which the FBI and Justice Department typically do a bells-n-whistles victory lap — the big self-congratulatory press conference followed by the media-intensive prosecutions . . . and, of course, more press conferences.


Here . . . crickets.


As the Hill reports, the Justice Department and FBI had little to say when Mikerin and his co-conspirators were arrested. They quietly negotiated guilty pleas that were announced with no fanfare just before Labor Day. It was arranged that Mikerin would be sentenced just before Christmas. All under the radar.


How desperate was the Obama Justice Department to plead the case out? Here, Rosenstein and Holder will have some explaining to do.


Mikerin was arrested on a complaint describing a racketeering scheme that stretched back to 2004 and included extortion, fraud, and money laundering. Yet he was permitted to plead guilty to a single count of money-laundering conspiracy.


Except it was not really money-laundering conspiracy.


Under federal law, that crime (at section 1956 of the penal code) carries a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment — not only for conspiracy but for each act of money laundering. But Mikerin was not made to plead guilty to this charge. He was permitted to plead guilty to an offense charged under the catch-all federal conspiracy provision (section 371) that criminalizes agreements to commit any crime against the United States. Section 371 prescribes a sentence of zero to five years’ imprisonment.


The Justice Department instructs prosecutors that when Congress has given a federal offense its own conspiracy provision with a heightened punishment (as it has for money laundering, racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and other serious crimes), they may not charge a section 371 conspiracy. Section 371 is for less serious conspiracy cases. Using it for money laundering — which caps the sentence way below Congress’s intent for that behavior — subverts federal law and signals to the court that the prosecutor does not regard the offense as major.


Yet, that is exactly what Rosenstein’s office did, in a plea agreement his prosecutors co-signed with attorneys from the Justice Department’s Fraud Section. (See in the Hill’s report, the third document embedded at the bottom, titled “Mikerin Plea Deal.”) No RICO, no extortion, no fraud — and the plea agreement is careful not to mention any of the extortions in 2009 and 2010, before CFIUS approved Rosatom’s acquisition of U.S. uranium stock. Mikerin just had to plead guilty to a nominal “money laundering” conspiracy charge. This insulated him from a real money-laundering sentence. Thus, he got a term of just four years’ incarceration for a major national-security crime — which, of course, is why he took the plea deal and waived his right to appeal, sparing the Obama administration a full public airing of the facts.


Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia.


There was still one other problem to tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk.


Specifically, as his attorney, Ms. Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk.


It turns out, the lawyer explains, that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to Congress. (Because, you know, the FBI is opposed to all leaks and disclosures of confidential investigative information . . . except those initiated by the FBI, of course.) In addition, when the informant was primed to file a federal civil lawsuit to recover his own losses from the scheme, he claims that the Justice Department threatened him with prosecution, warning that a lawsuit would violate the non-disclosure agreement. The Hill reports that it has obtained emails from a civil lawyer retained by the witness, which describe pressure exerted by the Justice Department to silence the informant.


What a coincidence: That was in 2016, the stretch run of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.




This stinks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering/

 

[middleview]

You make me sad.

The Individual was an FBI informant one that was subsequently threatened by the Obama Administration if he went public. Don't believe me? His attorney is highly respected (unlike a bankrupt porn lawyer for example) but I digress.

From one of the links that you obviously did not bother to read:

Think about this: The investigation of Russian racketeering in the American energy sector was the kind of spectacular success over which the FBI and Justice Department typically do a bells-n-whistles victory lap — the big self-congratulatory press conference followed by the media-intensive prosecutions . . . and, of course, more press conferences.


Here . . . crickets.


As the Hill reports, the Justice Department and FBI had little to say when Mikerin and his co-conspirators were arrested. They quietly negotiated guilty pleas that were announced with no fanfare just before Labor Day. It was arranged that Mikerin would be sentenced just before Christmas. All under the radar.


How desperate was the Obama Justice Department to plead the case out? Here, Rosenstein and Holder will have some explaining to do.


Mikerin was arrested on a complaint describing a racketeering scheme that stretched back to 2004 and included extortion, fraud, and money laundering. Yet he was permitted to plead guilty to a single count of money-laundering conspiracy.


Except it was not really money-laundering conspiracy.


Under federal law, that crime (at section 1956 of the penal code) carries a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment — not only for conspiracy but for each act of money laundering. But Mikerin was not made to plead guilty to this charge. He was permitted to plead guilty to an offense charged under the catch-all federal conspiracy provision (section 371) that criminalizes agreements to commit any crime against the United States. Section 371 prescribes a sentence of zero to five years’ imprisonment.


The Justice Department instructs prosecutors that when Congress has given a federal offense its own conspiracy provision with a heightened punishment (as it has for money laundering, racketeering, narcotics trafficking, and other serious crimes), they may not charge a section 371 conspiracy. Section 371 is for less serious conspiracy cases. Using it for money laundering — which caps the sentence way below Congress’s intent for that behavior — subverts federal law and signals to the court that the prosecutor does not regard the offense as major.


Yet, that is exactly what Rosenstein’s office did, in a plea agreement his prosecutors co-signed with attorneys from the Justice Department’s Fraud Section. (See in the Hill’s report, the third document embedded at the bottom, titled “Mikerin Plea Deal.”) No RICO, no extortion, no fraud — and the plea agreement is careful not to mention any of the extortions in 2009 and 2010, before CFIUS approved Rosatom’s acquisition of U.S. uranium stock. Mikerin just had to plead guilty to a nominal “money laundering” conspiracy charge. This insulated him from a real money-laundering sentence. Thus, he got a term of just four years’ incarceration for a major national-security crime — which, of course, is why he took the plea deal and waived his right to appeal, sparing the Obama administration a full public airing of the facts.


Interestingly, as the plea agreement shows, the Obama DOJ’s Fraud Section was then run by Andrew Weissmann, who is now one of the top prosecutors in Robert Mueller’s ongoing special-counsel investigation of suspected Trump collusion with Russia.


There was still one other problem to tamp down. That was the informant — the lobbyist who alerted the FBI to the Russian racketeering enterprise back in 2009. He wanted to talk.


Specifically, as his attorney, Ms. Toensing, explains, the informant wanted to tell Congress what he knows — about what the FBI and the Justice Department could already have proved in 2010 when CFIUS signed off on Russia’s acquisition of American nuclear material, and about what he’d learned of Russian efforts to curry favor with Bill and Hillary Clinton. But he was not allowed to talk.


It turns out, the lawyer explains, that the FBI had induced him to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Justice Department warned him that it was enforceable — even against disclosures to Congress. (Because, you know, the FBI is opposed to all leaks and disclosures of confidential investigative information . . . except those initiated by the FBI, of course.) In addition, when the informant was primed to file a federal civil lawsuit to recover his own losses from the scheme, he claims that the Justice Department threatened him with prosecution, warning that a lawsuit would violate the non-disclosure agreement. The Hill reports that it has obtained emails from a civil lawyer retained by the witness, which describe pressure exerted by the Justice Department to silence the informant.


What a coincidence: That was in 2016, the stretch run of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.




This stinks.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/uranium-one-deal-obama-administration-doj-hillary-clinton-racketeering/

Crickets? I did a search and got 17,500 hits on Mikerin pleading guilty. He got four years. There were a number of other indictments and convictions. How much did he have to do with successful prosecutions of Condrey, Rubizhevsky and others? Plea deals happen all the time, but for some reason you see some kind of corruption evident here.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/russian-nuclear-energy-official-pleads-guilty-money-laundering-conspiracy-involving

The guilty plea was announced in 2015. Douglas Campbell, the guy Victoria Toensing is representing, testified before congress in February of this year..

 

[Sickofleft]

Crickets? I did a search and got 17,500 hits on Mikerin pleading guilty. He got four years. There were a number of other indictments and convictions. How much did he have to do with successful prosecutions of Condrey, Rubizhevsky and others? Plea deals happen all the time, but for some reason you see some kind of corruption evident here.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/russian-nuclear-energy-official-pleads-guilty-money-laundering-conspiracy-involving

The guilty plea was announced in 2015. Douglas Campbell, the guy Victoria Toensing is representing, testified before congress in February of this year..

I will defer to the former Prosecutor who put the Blind Sheik in Jail to answer that as the hooey that it is..........

Yet, that is exactly what Rosenstein’s office did, in a plea agreement his prosecutors co-signed with attorneys from the Justice Department’s Fraud Section. (See in the Hill’s report, the third document embedded at the bottom, titled “Mikerin Plea Deal.”) No RICO, no extortion, no fraud — and the plea agreement is careful not to mention any of the extortions in 2009 and 2010, before CFIUS approved Rosatom’s acquisition of U.S. uranium stock. Mikerin just had to plead guilty to a nominal “money laundering” conspiracy charge. This insulated him from a real money-laundering sentence. Thus, he got a term of just four years’ incarceration for a major national-security crime — which, of course, is why he took the plea deal and waived his right to appeal, sparing the Obama administration a full public airing of the facts.