Russian Interference - You Decide

[DGS49]

Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:

"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.

[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].

All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.

Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it's not illegal to expose Hillary's corruption, it should be.

Ask any liberal, they'll agree.

If they won't come right out and admit it, ask them how they feel about Citizens United.....

 

[Penelope]

Its propaganda. We know the The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) all agreed to sell the uranium only to be used in the US.

That committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department, which Clinton ran at the time. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

AP Explains: What's the deal with the Uranium One deal?

While its not illegal to publish hogwash fake articles, that is why we as consumers have a real challenge to believe reading from more than one site.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Siete]

I dont care how many times you disprove the Uranium One deal to RW's they're simply too goddamn stupid to process the facts.

 

[Bleipriester]

View attachment 265586

Hole shit! The secret weapon!

 

[Slade3200]

Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:

"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.

[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].

All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.

Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?

Except for its not specific truthful or verified... how exactly did Clinton expedite the sale of uranium to the Russians?

And your source for truth is the word of a Russian rep? Really?

 

[Wuwei]

Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?

It's fake news.

As PolitiFact has laid out in great detail, there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo among Clinton, the State Department, Rosatom and the Clinton Foundation donors with ties to Uranium One. Clinton has repeatedly denied any involvement in the State Department’s approval of the Uranium One sale, insisting that such approval was granted at lower levels of the department and would not have crossed the secretary’s desk.

Jose Fernandez, who was the assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs when the Uranium One deal was approved, told the Times that Clinton “never intervened with me on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter."

Beyond the State Department, eight other government agencies approved the Uranium One sale.​

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

.

​

 

[dudmuck]

View attachment 265586

uh, yea...

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Its propaganda. We know the The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) all agreed to sell the uranium only to be used in the US.

That committee, known as CFIUS, is made up of officials from nine federal agencies, including the State Department, which Clinton ran at the time. Other agencies represented on the committee include the departments of Treasury, Defense, Commerce, Energy and Homeland Security and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

AP Explains: What's the deal with the Uranium One deal?

While its not illegal to publish hogwash fake articles, that is why we as consumers have a real challenge to believe reading from more than one site.

Your posts kill more brain cells than alcohol, Ms. Tompkins.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 265586

uh, yea...

Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries. It’s a joke, relax, Leftist.

 

[dudmuck]

View attachment 265586

uh, yea...

Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries. It’s a joke, relax, Leftist.

Yes, "Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries" is a joke. But since it doesnt make me laugh, its just a lie.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

View attachment 265586

uh, yea...

Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries. It’s a joke, relax, Leftist.

Yes, "Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries" is a joke. But since it doesnt make me laugh, its just a lie.

If you want to laugh, look in the mirror.

 

[hunarcy]

View attachment 265586

uh, yea...

Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries. It’s a joke, relax, Leftist.

Yes, "Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries" is a joke. But since it doesnt make me laugh, its just a lie.

I would not expect a humorless drone like you to laugh at anything. So, you're no judge...Go eat dirt through a straw.

 

[iceberg]

guess it's time to rehash this. between this and "what crime did trump commit" we seem to be stuck on topics that must repeat several times a week.

facebook ads. i looked. 95% of them were simply divisive. pit one extreme group against another and let them tear each other up while you sit back and giggle.

hack the DNC. unproven. the DNC was never given up to inspect. you can rattle off speculation about the russians hacking and point to many who are tagged as "deep state" who say it happened. but as far as i know you can't inspect a hacking without having the machine. it requires a lot of backtracking to several known methods.

DNC - info was "shoplifted" by the pakastani. more likely but again, unproven. the data we do have is consistent with this but also has fallen under question. usually by the "other" side out to give speaking points to discredit anything at all.

trump asked russia for the mails. the left will say trump is a liar and says stupid shit all the time. neither of which would i disagree. however, when he says something they want to attack, this seems to be a rare time that trump wasn't just talking smack (of which he certainly loves to do) and suddenly must be taken seriously. this is up there with trump mocking a handicapped person by making the same gestures he'd been making for the past decade. SUDDENLY these are to mock 1 person and the 10 years of history is ignored by the left. so - this is just bullshit and anyone tying their wagon to this post is a freaking dumbass of epic proportions.

so what else is there? if you say they tried to help trump - HOW? and be specific. this "well he lied about a meeting" is only focused on the lie cause nothing happened at the meeting itself. that's the dem way. accuse someone of rape then suddenly shift focus to lying once it's found no one raped anyone.

so what did russia do to help trump? random unproven links need not apply and Care4all no one needs your bulletpoints and "silly boy" shit. we know you memorized the talking points ad nauseum so don't bother telling me a bunch more of your unlinked pom pom we are 100% clean your side 100% sucks bullshit.

now - for everyone else - what EXACTLY did russia do? if facebook ads, link me to the ones in question that shifted the election. i didn't see many pure political ones.

 

[iceberg]

View attachment 265586

uh, yea...

Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries. It’s a joke, relax, Leftist.

Yes, "Illegals who voted for him are foreign adversaries" is a joke. But since it doesnt make me laugh, its just a lie.

If you want to laugh, look in the mirror.

if he wants to laugh without end, he can pull his pants down THEN look in the mirror.

 

[iceberg]

Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:

"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.

[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].

All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.

Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?

Except for its not specific truthful or verified... how exactly did Clinton expedite the sale of uranium to the Russians?

And your source for truth is the word of a Russian rep? Really?

here's what cracks me up:
Defense of the sale:
The Alternative 'Russia Scandal'
"It's a commercial market; it's a global market. Companies get bought and sold. Some of the companies that do the buying are controlled by foreign governments," said Matthew Bunn, who heads the Project on Managing the Atom, a nuclear policy research group at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "That's the world we live in. It's a totally normal purchase."
-----
but when it's trump, any of these foreign dealings are subject to their whims of prosecution. it really strikes me odd when people go hardline defense for the actions of their side yet when the OTHER side does more or less the same thing, suddenly it's a crime and their own actions are whined out WHATBOUTISM crap.

we have "whataboutism" because people are so damn selective in their enforcement of our laws. maybe we all need to stop and think about that part. or we can be pouty 2 years old demanding our views be accepted while we discount the others at the same time.

as for the $145mil - you're foolish to believe the clinton foundation was only for good wholesome measures OR that someone like hillary never used her position for personal gain. how is that foundation doing after she left office? if people are suddenly less likely to donate then usually it's because they are no longer getting value for their "donation".

 

[AntonToo]

Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:

"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.

[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].

All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.

Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?

False dichotomy.

Electioneering by foreign country could theoretically be BOTH true AND illegal. No serious domestic media outlet would knowingly participate in this illegal act.

 

[iceberg]

Hypothetical: It's September, 2016. The Government of the Russian Federation takes out a full-page ad in the New York Times, as follows:

"Secretary Hillary Clinton accepted a million dollar bribe to expedite and promote a sale of U.S. uranium mines to a Russian private company. Included was her influence in obtaining required waivers and permits. The facsimile below is copy of the the wire bank transfer, as well as certified transcripts of phone conversations involving the Secretary, in person, confirming the arrangement. Below that is a sworn statement by a representative of the Russian company confirming the facts as reported on this page.

[copies as stated, reproduced on the page].

All of this is truthful, specific, and verified.

Is this presentation of factual information illegal "interference" with the U.S. presidential election? Or is it a public service?

False dichotomy.

Electioneering by foreign country could theoretically be BOTH true AND illegal. No serious domestic media outlet would knowingly participate in this illegal act.

False dichotomy - CNN lives for this shit cause it sells. then again you did say "serious" - but then, not many of those really left. just those selling hate.

 

[Care4all]

guess it's time to rehash this. between this and "what crime did trump commit" we seem to be stuck on topics that must repeat several times a week.

facebook ads. i looked. 95% of them were simply divisive. pit one extreme group against another and let them tear each other up while you sit back and giggle.

hack the DNC. unproven. the DNC was never given up to inspect. you can rattle off speculation about the russians hacking and point to many who are tagged as "deep state" who say it happened. but as far as i know you can't inspect a hacking without having the machine. it requires a lot of backtracking to several known methods.

DNC - info was "shoplifted" by the pakastani. more likely but again, unproven. the data we do have is consistent with this but also has fallen under question. usually by the "other" side out to give speaking points to discredit anything at all.

trump asked russia for the mails. the left will say trump is a liar and says stupid shit all the time. neither of which would i disagree. however, when he says something they want to attack, this seems to be a rare time that trump wasn't just talking smack (of which he certainly loves to do) and suddenly must be taken seriously. this is up there with trump mocking a handicapped person by making the same gestures he'd been making for the past decade. SUDDENLY these are to mock 1 person and the 10 years of history is ignored by the left. so - this is just bullshit and anyone tying their wagon to this post is a freaking dumbass of epic proportions.

so what else is there? if you say they tried to help trump - HOW? and be specific. this "well he lied about a meeting" is only focused on the lie cause nothing happened at the meeting itself. that's the dem way. accuse someone of rape then suddenly shift focus to lying once it's found no one raped anyone.

so what did russia do to help trump? random unproven links need not apply and Care4all no one needs your bulletpoints and "silly boy" shit. we know you memorized the talking points ad nauseum so don't bother telling me a bunch more of your unlinked pom pom we are 100% clean your side 100% sucks bullshit.

now - for everyone else - what EXACTLY did russia do? if facebook ads, link me to the ones in question that shifted the election. i didn't see many pure political ones.