New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

What Collusion actually looks like

S

Sickofleft

Guest
The complete lack of coverage of the recent disclosures by the FBI that they had evidence of bribes and kickbacks concerning the Uranium One deal is pathetic. I think because of these disclosures Robert Mueller should be forced to step down from his investigation.


Uranium & Diarrhea, Inc
by Mark Steyn
Topical Take
October 20, 2017


The big story this week is that the FBI uncovered a Moscow bribery plot just before the Obama Administration approved the transfer of 20 per cent of American uranium into the hands of the Russians.

And who precisely were the Russkies trying to bribe?

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted "with the consent of higher level officials" in Russia who "shared the proceeds" from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Fancy that! A racketeering scheme centered on the Clintons! Who'da thunk it? Other names in the story have a weary familiarity, too:

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Unlike the current "Russia investigation", where details of dawn raids on Paul Manafort are gaily leaked hither and yon, Mueller and Comey managed to keep the lid on this one for the six-plus years it was active. And happily it doesn't seem to have obstructed either the Clintons' or the Russians' mutually beneficial relationship:

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America's uranium supply.

Hmm. Uranium One... Rosatom... Where have I heard those names before? Oh, yeah. From me, two-and-a-half years ago - April 27th 2015:

One of the lessons learned by the Clintons back in the Nineties is that, if you're gonna have a scandal, have a hundred of 'em. And then it's all too complicated and just gives everyone a big headache, and they go back to watching "Friends" or "Baywatch" or whatever it was back then. When a scandal gets too easy to follow, that's where the danger lies.

As things stand, Vladimir Putin has wound up with control of 20 per cent of American uranium production.

That's almost too funny an update of the line variously attributed to Lenin, Stalin and others: "The capitalists will sell us the rope by which we will hang them." In this case, we've sold Putin the uranium by which he will nuke us. As the Russian news agency TASS reported two years ago:

'MOSCOW, May 22 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's nuclear power corporation Rosatom controls 20 percent of all uranium reserves in the United States, the corporation's chief, Sergei Kiriyenko told the State Duma on Wednesday...

'"I am pleased to inform you that today we control 20 percent of uranium in the United States. If we need that uranium, we shall be able to use it any time," Kiriyenko said.'

Great! By the way, before he became America's fastest rising uranium executive, Mr Kiriyenko was Prime Minister of Russia.

In return for facilitating the transfer to Putin of one-fifth of US uranium, the Clintons were given tens of millions of dollars by Vancouver businessman Frank Giustra (the founder of "Uranium One" in its pre-Putin days) and various of his associates. In 2006, Mr Giustra told The New Yorker:

"All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton," he said. "He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can."

Ah.

Oh, my mistake. When I said Giustra and his pals had given over $100 million to "the Clintons", I meant they gave it to "The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" - or its Canadian subsidiary, established after Hillary had signed a disclosure agreement for the US foundation with the Obama Administration and, being Canadian, thus exempt from the disclosure agreement. At least as Bill and Hillary's lawyers read it.

There is no Clinton "Foundation" - in the sense of a body that engages in charitable activities and does good works. As I said to Hugh Hewitt on the radio all those years ago:

Well wait, but just a minute, Hugh, there is no 'Clinton Foundation'... The only purpose of this foundation is to enable this family to lead the lifestyle of a head of state after it has ceased to be head of state.

And the only reason anyone ponied up money to the "foundation" is that it was assumed a Clinton would be head of state again in a couple of years - just as the tedious requirements of the Russian constitution required Putin to take a break (albeit entirely nominally) from being head of state for a couple of years. After November 8th, the price for Clinton speeches mysteriously dropped 98 per cent - so the Clintons closed their "foundation". But by then it had served its purpose.

Everybody who knows anything about charity knows the truth about the Clinton "Foundation" - as The New York Post reported, also all those years ago:

The Clinton Foundation's finances are so messy that the nation's most influential charity watchdog put it on its "watch list" of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

Indeed. Me again, from April 2015:

For example, Chelsea's chum Eric Braverman was paid $275,000 for five months' work. In Clintonworld, charity begins at home. So, if, like all these big-hearted Saudi princes and Canuck uranium execs, you give money to the Clinton Foundation because you care about starving Third World urchins, for every million bucks you hand over, a full 64 grand goes to the Third World urchins and the remaining $936,000 is the processing fee. Paul Mirengoff cautions:

'It's important to note that the Clinton Foundation's status as a problematic charity is distinct from the "Clinton cash" issue that Peter Schweizer and others have highlighted. "Clinton cash" focuses on the fundraising methods used by the Clintons. Specifically, there are substantial allegations that they raise money in part because nations and wealthy individuals hope to influence U.S. policy through their donations, and very possibly have succeeded in doing so.

'The problem flagged by Charity Navigator and other watchdogs focuses on what the Clinton Foundation does with the money it raises (whether ethically or not). The Foundation's profligacy and failure to spend a significant percentage of its funds on its alleged mission would be of concern even if there were no ethical problems associated with the Clintons' fundraising.'



https://www.steynonline.com/8207/uranium-diarrhea-inc
 
wait - it gets worse.

in 2010, as secretary of state, Hillary used her influence to help get the Russians out of the USA and back to Moscow, before the story broke.

the reason why?

Bill was giving a $500,000 speech that week in the Kremlin to Putin's cronies.

this is true.
 

Jen

Senator
When the investigator is the one who is guilty, it's time to quit the charade and start all over again.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Steyn is a national treasure. And, of course, he is (as usual) spot on here. What I find mind boggling is how the left can sit there and say Hillary laundering money through a law firm to pay a foreign national with Russian connections to travel to Moscow and SOLICIT (i.e. pay for) fictional salacious "accounts" of Trump's pre-election activities in Russia that was then USED AGAINST HIM IN THE ELECTION is perfectly fine, but a (potentially Hillary funded) effort by a couple of Russians to trick Trump's people into accepting (i.e. not seeking it) a meeting with a [Unwelcome language removed] and bull bait and switch suggestion that they had information on Hillary's potentially illegal acts in Russia, that resulted in precisely nothing that they used in the campaign, is tantamount to treason. It's (literally) insane...
 

Constitutional Sheepdog

][][][%er!!!!!!!
The complete lack of coverage of the recent disclosures by the FBI that they had evidence of bribes and kickbacks concerning the Uranium One deal is pathetic. I think because of these disclosures Robert Mueller should be forced to step down from his investigation.


Uranium & Diarrhea, Inc
by Mark Steyn
Topical Take
October 20, 2017


The big story this week is that the FBI uncovered a Moscow bribery plot just before the Obama Administration approved the transfer of 20 per cent of American uranium into the hands of the Russians.

And who precisely were the Russkies trying to bribe?

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted "with the consent of higher level officials" in Russia who "shared the proceeds" from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Fancy that! A racketeering scheme centered on the Clintons! Who'da thunk it? Other names in the story have a weary familiarity, too:

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Unlike the current "Russia investigation", where details of dawn raids on Paul Manafort are gaily leaked hither and yon, Mueller and Comey managed to keep the lid on this one for the six-plus years it was active. And happily it doesn't seem to have obstructed either the Clintons' or the Russians' mutually beneficial relationship:

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America's uranium supply.

Hmm. Uranium One... Rosatom... Where have I heard those names before? Oh, yeah. From me, two-and-a-half years ago - April 27th 2015:

One of the lessons learned by the Clintons back in the Nineties is that, if you're gonna have a scandal, have a hundred of 'em. And then it's all too complicated and just gives everyone a big headache, and they go back to watching "Friends" or "Baywatch" or whatever it was back then. When a scandal gets too easy to follow, that's where the danger lies.

As things stand, Vladimir Putin has wound up with control of 20 per cent of American uranium production.

That's almost too funny an update of the line variously attributed to Lenin, Stalin and others: "The capitalists will sell us the rope by which we will hang them." In this case, we've sold Putin the uranium by which he will nuke us. As the Russian news agency TASS reported two years ago:

'MOSCOW, May 22 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's nuclear power corporation Rosatom controls 20 percent of all uranium reserves in the United States, the corporation's chief, Sergei Kiriyenko told the State Duma on Wednesday...

'"I am pleased to inform you that today we control 20 percent of uranium in the United States. If we need that uranium, we shall be able to use it any time," Kiriyenko said.'

Great! By the way, before he became America's fastest rising uranium executive, Mr Kiriyenko was Prime Minister of Russia.

In return for facilitating the transfer to Putin of one-fifth of US uranium, the Clintons were given tens of millions of dollars by Vancouver businessman Frank Giustra (the founder of "Uranium One" in its pre-Putin days) and various of his associates. In 2006, Mr Giustra told The New Yorker:

"All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton," he said. "He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can."

Ah.

Oh, my mistake. When I said Giustra and his pals had given over $100 million to "the Clintons", I meant they gave it to "The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" - or its Canadian subsidiary, established after Hillary had signed a disclosure agreement for the US foundation with the Obama Administration and, being Canadian, thus exempt from the disclosure agreement. At least as Bill and Hillary's lawyers read it.

There is no Clinton "Foundation" - in the sense of a body that engages in charitable activities and does good works. As I said to Hugh Hewitt on the radio all those years ago:

Well wait, but just a minute, Hugh, there is no 'Clinton Foundation'... The only purpose of this foundation is to enable this family to lead the lifestyle of a head of state after it has ceased to be head of state.

And the only reason anyone ponied up money to the "foundation" is that it was assumed a Clinton would be head of state again in a couple of years - just as the tedious requirements of the Russian constitution required Putin to take a break (albeit entirely nominally) from being head of state for a couple of years. After November 8th, the price for Clinton speeches mysteriously dropped 98 per cent - so the Clintons closed their "foundation". But by then it had served its purpose.

Everybody who knows anything about charity knows the truth about the Clinton "Foundation" - as The New York Post reported, also all those years ago:

The Clinton Foundation's finances are so messy that the nation's most influential charity watchdog put it on its "watch list" of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

Indeed. Me again, from April 2015:

For example, Chelsea's chum Eric Braverman was paid $275,000 for five months' work. In Clintonworld, charity begins at home. So, if, like all these big-hearted Saudi princes and Canuck uranium execs, you give money to the Clinton Foundation because you care about starving Third World urchins, for every million bucks you hand over, a full 64 grand goes to the Third World urchins and the remaining $936,000 is the processing fee. Paul Mirengoff cautions:

'It's important to note that the Clinton Foundation's status as a problematic charity is distinct from the "Clinton cash" issue that Peter Schweizer and others have highlighted. "Clinton cash" focuses on the fundraising methods used by the Clintons. Specifically, there are substantial allegations that they raise money in part because nations and wealthy individuals hope to influence U.S. policy through their donations, and very possibly have succeeded in doing so.

'The problem flagged by Charity Navigator and other watchdogs focuses on what the Clinton Foundation does with the money it raises (whether ethically or not). The Foundation's profligacy and failure to spend a significant percentage of its funds on its alleged mission would be of concern even if there were no ethical problems associated with the Clintons' fundraising.'



https://www.steynonline.com/8207/uranium-diarrhea-inc
This a first not even one hit and run troll leftist has posted to this thread. They must be Elmre Fodding it look for rascially Russians
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Steyn is a national treasure. And, of course, he is (as usual) spot on here. What I find mind boggling is how the left can sit there and say Hillary laundering money through a law firm to pay a foreign national with Russian connections to travel to Moscow and SOLICIT (i.e. pay for) fictional salacious "accounts" of Trump's pre-election activities in Russia that was then USED AGAINST HIM IN THE ELECTION is perfectly fine, but a (potentially Hillary funded) effort by a couple of Russians to trick Trump's people into accepting (i.e. not seeking it) a meeting with a [Unwelcome language removed] and bull bait and switch suggestion that they had information on Hillary's potentially illegal acts in Russia, that resulted in precisely nothing that they used in the campaign, is tantamount to treason. It's (literally) insane...
This is an example of your logical approach?

Hiring a law firm is not "laundering money" by any stretch.

Who is the individual who traveled to Moscow? This is another example of you embellishing the facts to make the story more sinister. A republican rag paid for the research...when Trump became the nominee a law firm picked it up. It was Fusion GPS who did the research. They are based in the US. They hired Steele, a former British MI6 agent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_GPS

What evidence do you have that Hillary paid someone to "trick" Trump and his campaign?

Look up the word Treason. You're pretty far off using that term here.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
'The problem flagged by Charity Navigator and other watchdogs focuses on what the Clinton Foundation does with the money it raises (whether ethically or not). The Foundation's profligacy and failure to spend a significant percentage of its funds on its alleged mission would be of concern even if there were no ethical problems associated with the Clintons' fundraising.'

https://www.steynonline.com/8207/uranium-diarrhea-inc
This is completely false. The CGI doesn't do grants like other do. They hire their own people and do the work themselves. That is why travel expenses are high, because their employees are traveling to other countries to actually implement projects.

Charity Navigator rates them four stars. 86.9% of funds collected are used on programs.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
The complete lack of coverage of the recent disclosures by the FBI that they had evidence of bribes and kickbacks concerning the Uranium One deal is pathetic. I think because of these disclosures Robert Mueller should be forced to step down from his investigation.


Uranium & Diarrhea, Inc
by Mark Steyn
Topical Take
October 20, 2017


The big story this week is that the FBI uncovered a Moscow bribery plot just before the Obama Administration approved the transfer of 20 per cent of American uranium into the hands of the Russians.

And who precisely were the Russkies trying to bribe?

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton's charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted "with the consent of higher level officials" in Russia who "shared the proceeds" from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

Fancy that! A racketeering scheme centered on the Clintons! Who'da thunk it? Other names in the story have a weary familiarity, too:

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Unlike the current "Russia investigation", where details of dawn raids on Paul Manafort are gaily leaked hither and yon, Mueller and Comey managed to keep the lid on this one for the six-plus years it was active. And happily it doesn't seem to have obstructed either the Clintons' or the Russians' mutually beneficial relationship:

The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America's uranium supply.

Hmm. Uranium One... Rosatom... Where have I heard those names before? Oh, yeah. From me, two-and-a-half years ago - April 27th 2015:

One of the lessons learned by the Clintons back in the Nineties is that, if you're gonna have a scandal, have a hundred of 'em. And then it's all too complicated and just gives everyone a big headache, and they go back to watching "Friends" or "Baywatch" or whatever it was back then. When a scandal gets too easy to follow, that's where the danger lies.

As things stand, Vladimir Putin has wound up with control of 20 per cent of American uranium production.

That's almost too funny an update of the line variously attributed to Lenin, Stalin and others: "The capitalists will sell us the rope by which we will hang them." In this case, we've sold Putin the uranium by which he will nuke us. As the Russian news agency TASS reported two years ago:

'MOSCOW, May 22 (Itar-Tass) - Russia's nuclear power corporation Rosatom controls 20 percent of all uranium reserves in the United States, the corporation's chief, Sergei Kiriyenko told the State Duma on Wednesday...

'"I am pleased to inform you that today we control 20 percent of uranium in the United States. If we need that uranium, we shall be able to use it any time," Kiriyenko said.'

Great! By the way, before he became America's fastest rising uranium executive, Mr Kiriyenko was Prime Minister of Russia.

In return for facilitating the transfer to Putin of one-fifth of US uranium, the Clintons were given tens of millions of dollars by Vancouver businessman Frank Giustra (the founder of "Uranium One" in its pre-Putin days) and various of his associates. In 2006, Mr Giustra told The New Yorker:

"All of my chips, almost, are on Bill Clinton," he said. "He's a brand, a worldwide brand, and he can do things and ask for things that no one else can."

Ah.

Oh, my mistake. When I said Giustra and his pals had given over $100 million to "the Clintons", I meant they gave it to "The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation" - or its Canadian subsidiary, established after Hillary had signed a disclosure agreement for the US foundation with the Obama Administration and, being Canadian, thus exempt from the disclosure agreement. At least as Bill and Hillary's lawyers read it.

There is no Clinton "Foundation" - in the sense of a body that engages in charitable activities and does good works. As I said to Hugh Hewitt on the radio all those years ago:

Well wait, but just a minute, Hugh, there is no 'Clinton Foundation'... The only purpose of this foundation is to enable this family to lead the lifestyle of a head of state after it has ceased to be head of state.

And the only reason anyone ponied up money to the "foundation" is that it was assumed a Clinton would be head of state again in a couple of years - just as the tedious requirements of the Russian constitution required Putin to take a break (albeit entirely nominally) from being head of state for a couple of years. After November 8th, the price for Clinton speeches mysteriously dropped 98 per cent - so the Clintons closed their "foundation". But by then it had served its purpose.

Everybody who knows anything about charity knows the truth about the Clinton "Foundation" - as The New York Post reported, also all those years ago:

The Clinton Foundation's finances are so messy that the nation's most influential charity watchdog put it on its "watch list" of problematic nonprofits last month.

The Clinton family's mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

Indeed. Me again, from April 2015:

For example, Chelsea's chum Eric Braverman was paid $275,000 for five months' work. In Clintonworld, charity begins at home. So, if, like all these big-hearted Saudi princes and Canuck uranium execs, you give money to the Clinton Foundation because you care about starving Third World urchins, for every million bucks you hand over, a full 64 grand goes to the Third World urchins and the remaining $936,000 is the processing fee. Paul Mirengoff cautions:

'It's important to note that the Clinton Foundation's status as a problematic charity is distinct from the "Clinton cash" issue that Peter Schweizer and others have highlighted. "Clinton cash" focuses on the fundraising methods used by the Clintons. Specifically, there are substantial allegations that they raise money in part because nations and wealthy individuals hope to influence U.S. policy through their donations, and very possibly have succeeded in doing so.

'The problem flagged by Charity Navigator and other watchdogs focuses on what the Clinton Foundation does with the money it raises (whether ethically or not). The Foundation's profligacy and failure to spend a significant percentage of its funds on its alleged mission would be of concern even if there were no ethical problems associated with the Clintons' fundraising.'



https://www.steynonline.com/8207/uranium-diarrhea-inc
Yeah, in 2010 Hillary colluded with Russia to help her in the 2016 Hillary/Trump election.

That's what real collusion looks like.

In Wingerworld.

;-)
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
This is an example of your logical approach?

Hiring a law firm is not "laundering money" by any stretch.

Who is the individual who traveled to Moscow? This is another example of you embellishing the facts to make the story more sinister. A republican rag paid for the research...when Trump became the nominee a law firm picked it up. It was Fusion GPS who did the research. They are based in the US. They hired Steele, a former British MI6 agent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_GPS

What evidence do you have that Hillary paid someone to "trick" Trump and his campaign?

Look up the word Treason. You're pretty far off using that term here.
It is if you don't report it:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/25/fec-complaint-accuses-clinton-dnc-violations/

Steele was hired to dig up the dirt:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.0785130262e6

It looks like Fusion GPS set up the Trump Jr. meeting:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/07/fusion-gps-official-met-with-russian-operative-before-and-after-trump-jr-sit-down.html

LOL @ your demand we pay no attention to all the above...
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Yeah, in 2010 Hillary colluded with Russia to help her in the 2016 Hillary/Trump election.

That's what real collusion looks like.

In Wingerworld.

;-)
It didn't have anything to do with the election, it had to do with the Clinton's pocketing as much money as possible through their "charity" in order to keep living like heads of state when they were no longer heads of state...

In this case through a kickback scheme that gave a State owned Russian Nuclear company control of 1/5 of all the Uranium in the United States.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest

Bugsy McGurk

President
It didn't have anything to do with the election, it had to do with the Clinton's pocketing as much money as possible through their "charity" in order to keep living like heads of state when they were no longer heads of state...

In this case through a kickback scheme that gave a State owned Russian Nuclear company control of 1/5 of all the Uranium in the United States.
Then what's with the babbling about "real collusion"?

Such drivel.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Then what's with the babbling about "real collusion"?

Such drivel.
Here let me help you:

col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun

  1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Conspiring with a State Owned Russian nuclear company to gain control of 1/5 of the Uranium in the United States through a series of kickbacks and bribes is collusion, real collusion with the Russians.

Just think how loud you would be screaming if a deal like this took place while Trump was President and one of his children was suddenly getting 500k for speech in Moscow....

But I am sure that would be different......... :rolleyes:







 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Here let me help you:

col·lu·sion
kəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun

  1. secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

Conspiring with a State Owned Russian nuclear company to gain control of 1/5 of the Uranium in the United States through a series of kickbacks and bribes is collusion, real collusion with the Russians.

Just think how loud you would be screaming if a deal like this took place while Trump was President and one of his children was suddenly getting 500k for speech in Moscow....

But I am sure that would be different......... :rolleyes:






Please. Sane people ignore wingers' endless yapping about some years old uranium deal.

You need way better than that if you want to derail the focus on Trump and his cabal.
 
S

Sickofleft

Guest
Please. Sane people ignore wingers' endless yapping about some years old uranium deal.

You need way better than that if you want to derail the focus on Trump and his cabal.
Only one response for people who ignore the Uranium One deal and rant about the Russians and Trump.

Fvck You.
 
Top