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

Is this why libs have dropped the Russia "helped Don win election"

Dawg said:
http://thetruthdivision.com/2017/03/oops-heres-much-russia-donated-clinton-foundation/

Eh, appears if anyone was bought it was Pig-In-Pant-Suits, Russia bought............

for Uranium and $500,000 speech for Slick

dem/libs just can't Win anything any longer☺
Click to expand...
Liberals haven't dropped the story, as much as people like you wish they had. The fact is Putin helped to get Trump elected. The mere fact a charity the Clintons set up got donations from Russians, along with people from all around the world, obviously doesn't alter that. It's odd you'd imagine it would.
 
Arkady said:
Liberals haven't dropped the story, as much as people like you wish they had. The fact is Putin helped to get Trump elected. The mere fact a charity the Clintons set up got donations from Russians, along with people from all around the world, obviously doesn't alter that. It's odd you'd imagine it would.
Click to expand...
Please.....the link clearly shows the Clinton connections to Russia by their own admission no less. Putin and his cronies spent multi millions buying what they clearly anticipated was going to be influence and favors from the Clintons. Slick and Hilliary are sickenly corrupt.

Whoops.....epic fail
 
Tor-Pete-O said:
Please.....the link clearly shows the Clinton connections to Russia by their own admission no less. Putin and his cronies spent multi millions buying what they clearly anticipated was going to be influence and favors from the Clintons. Slick and Hilliary are sickenly corrupt.

Whoops.....epic fail
Click to expand...
The article deals with a tech organization donating money to a charity. Give it a read.
 
Arkady said:
Liberals haven't dropped the story, as much as people like you wish they had. The fact is Putin helped to get Trump elected. The mere fact a charity the Clintons set up got donations from Russians, along with people from all around the world, obviously doesn't alter that. It's odd you'd imagine it would.
Click to expand...

Oh? Is it really a fact Ark?

Would you care to enumerate just how you know this?

Jo
 
Arkady said:
Every US intelligence agency confirmed.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....Your choice of verifications is rather poor I'd say.
If Comey is any example of how much they can be trusted I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to talk to you about.

I learned this the hard way about a year ago. I can see you have yet to learn that lesson.

Jo
 
Arkady said:
The article deals with a tech organization donating money to a charity. Give it a read.
Click to expand...
Oh I read it!

A "charity" organization with a 6% pass through!! What a joke!!
Since it's inception in 2001 the CGI has collected over $2 billion dollars. They must have done an incredible amount of good with all that money.....care to give some examples of the Clintons philanthropy?

The CGI is a slush fund for the Clinton machine and nothing else. To call it a "charity" is gut bustingly hilarious!

And Slick and Hilliary's Ruskie pals ponied up over $20 million on the come in anticipation of her much ballyhooed acension to the presidency.

Whoops.....epic fail!
 
justoffal said:
Hmmmm....Your choice of verifications is rather poor I'd say.
Click to expand...

Of course you would. Any source that tells you things that fail to confirm your prejudices is a poor choice of sources, from your perspective. I'm not that way. I honestly want to know what happens in the world, rather than merely wanting my prejudices reinforced. It's a completely different mindset.
 
Tor-Pete-O said:
Oh I read it!

A "charity" organization with a 6% pass through!!
Click to expand...

You have no clue at all. Read up on it. Don't satisfy yourself with the right wing propaganda outlets aimed at credulous imbeciles. Read some real news. You'll see that ridiculous spin job is based on a silly and willful misunderstanding of how charities work -- essentially, it's based on the idea that the only spending a charity can do that's actually charitable is to make a grant to another charity. It's shocking that there are so many people stupid enough to fall for that.
.care to give some examples of the Clintons philanthropy?
Click to expand...

Sure. They donate to the Clinton Foundation.

Anyway, we're back to the fact you're trying to distract from Russian interference in the election on Trump's behalf, and you're doing so by citing a tech organization that donated money to charity. Bizarre stuff!
 
Arkady said:
Liberals haven't dropped the story, as much as people like you wish they had. The fact is Putin helped to get Trump elected. The mere fact a charity the Clintons set up got donations from Russians, along with people from all around the world, obviously doesn't alter that. It's odd you'd imagine it would.
Click to expand...

It's adorable that you actually believe that.
 
Arkady said:
Yes, I agree that my embrace of clear truths is something to be adored.
Click to expand...

It's actually your blind faith in the inherently corrupt Clinton's that lends to blind naivete that can only be described as adorable.

Clinton Global Initiative did charitable work like most charities have an electric bill to pay. The business was not charity it was/is (are they still open?) peddling access and influence, nothing more nothing less.

Please ask the people of Haiti how good they are at charity.

Please see the Uranium One deal as a prime example of influence, State Department signs off on giving a Russian company 1/5 control of Uranium in the US, meanwhile Bill is suddenly getting 500K for a speech in Moscow by a bank with a major holding in the company............What was Bill's typical fee anyway?........I am sure it's coincidence......o_O



Actually I take back adorable, you are just in ugly, ugly denial or you are simply lying to protect your betters.
 
sigh... kkkonservatives are such losers and traitors to America

sad

1g72ad.jpg
 
Sickofleft said:
It's actually your blind faith in the inherently corrupt Clinton's that lends to blind naivete that can only be described as adorable.

Clinton Global Initiative did charitable work like most charities have an electric bill to pay. The business was not charity it was/is (are they still open?) peddling access and influence, nothing more nothing less.

Please ask the people of Haiti how good they are at charity.

Please see the Uranium One deal as a prime example of influence, State Department signs off on giving a Russian company 1/5 control of Uranium in the US, meanwhile Bill is suddenly getting 500K for a speech in Moscow by a bank with a major holding in the company............What was Bill's typical fee anyway?........I am sure it's coincidence......o_O



Actually I take back adorable, you are just in ugly, ugly denial or you are simply lying to protect your betters.
Click to expand...
If the goal was to peddle influence, then, obviously, they'd have set it up like the Trump foundation -- they'd have had it run entirely by immediate family members, to make sure only a few trusted and complicit eyes were there to see the money flowing from the donors into the family's wallets. That way they could do the kinds of self-dealing Trump did with his "charity."

Instead, they set it up with all the major operational roles in the hands of well-respected figures from outside the Clinton family -- people associated with other big charities, as well as major figures from the business, legal, and political worlds. That includes all the officers and the large majority of the board members. That's the exact opposite of how you'd set up a charity you intended to use to peddle influence. But that won't keep the INCREDIBLY naive right wingers from swallowing every half baked conspiracy theory Fox News hands them. They're pathetic.

As for the uranium deal, that was signed off on by the secretaries of the treasury, defense, justice, commerce, energy, and homeland security, as well as the US trade Representative and the office of science and technology, plus the nuclear regulatory commission and Utah's regulator. That's in addition to the actual merger needing clearance from Canadian regulators. So, what magical powers did Clinton use to get nine or ten other independent reviewers to agree it was OK? The reason she approved is the same reason they all did: there was no reason not to. If the same thing happened under a Republican administration, you wouldn't even have heard about it. But dumb right wingers could easily be convinced something fishy was happening by the mere mention of the name Clinton. They're exceedingly gullible.
 
Arkady said:
If the goal was to peddle influence, then, obviously, they'd have set it up like the Trump foundation -- they'd have had it run entirely by immediate family members, to make sure only a few trusted and complicit eyes were there to see the money flowing from the donors into the family's wallets. That way they could do the kinds of self-dealing Trump did with his "charity."

Instead, they set it up with all the major operational roles in the hands of well-respected figures from outside the Clinton family -- people associated with other big charities, as well as major figures from the business, legal, and political worlds. That includes all the officers and the large majority of the board members. That's the exact opposite of how you'd set up a charity you intended to use to peddle influence. But that won't keep the INCREDIBLY naive right wingers from swallowing every half baked conspiracy theory Fox News hands them. They're pathetic.

As for the uranium deal, that was signed off on by the secretaries of the treasury, defense, justice, commerce, energy, and homeland security, as well as the US trade Representative and the office of science and technology, plus the nuclear regulatory commission and Utah's regulator. That's in addition to the actual merger needing clearance from Canadian regulators. So, what magical powers did Clinton use to get nine or ten other independent reviewers to agree it was OK? The reason she approved is the same reason they all did: there was no reason not to. If the same thing happened under a Republican administration, you wouldn't even have heard about it. But dumb right wingers could easily be convinced something fishy was happening by the mere mention of the name Clinton. They're exceedingly gullible.
Click to expand...

Good boy, way to carry that water.
 
Arkady said:
Liberals haven't dropped the story, as much as people like you wish they had. The fact is Putin helped to get Trump elected. The mere fact a charity the Clintons set up got donations from Russians, along with people from all around the world, obviously doesn't alter that. It's odd you'd imagine it would.
Click to expand...

That diatribe explains why you have NO clients.........

DNC and Libs chose least popular candidate, not Russia:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...t-popular-senators/ss-BBzSoyn?ocid=spartandhp

It's all good, at least Pig In Pant Suits will now NEVER be POTUS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top