Washinton Post: "There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the uranium deal"

Ted Frazier

Gold Member
Nov 12, 2016
3,102
620
255
The best thing about the Trump Dossier story is that it eliminates chants of "fake news!" every time someone here posts a Washington Post story that debunks conservative bullshit.
Thus, this take-down of the "uranium story" will not be met with "Fake news!" chants, as the Washington Post is now trusted by both liberals and conservatives in this board:

Washington Post (October 26, 2016): There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the deal personally, and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state. Theoretically, as Schweizer says, Clinton could have intervened. But even then, it ultimately would have been Obama’s decision whether to suspend or block the deal.
The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal

And then there's this new story also from the Washington Post, regarding a Uranium story in the linkbait publication "The Hill", where the article is called "flimsy": Opinion | The Hill’s flimsy Russia-uranium story lands with maximum effect
 
upload_2017-10-25_12-21-34.png


But for now, there isn’t enough evidence to suggest that Clinton’s actions -- ill-advised as they might have been -- were any more problematic than it seemed they were a year ago.

Hillary Clinton, Russia, and uranium: What you need to know

Conservatives are desperate
 
The best thing about the Trump Dossier story is that it eliminates chants of "fake news!" every time someone here posts a Washington Post story that debunks conservative bullshit.
Thus, this take-down of the "uranium story" will not be met with "Fake news!" chants, as the Washington Post is now trusted by both liberals and conservatives in this board:

Washington Post (October 26, 2016): There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the deal personally, and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state. Theoretically, as Schweizer says, Clinton could have intervened. But even then, it ultimately would have been Obama’s decision whether to suspend or block the deal.
The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal

And then there's this new story also from the Washington Post, regarding a Uranium story in the linkbait publication "The Hill", where the article is called "flimsy": Opinion | The Hill’s flimsy Russia-uranium story lands with maximum effect
2016?

We know a lot more now.
 
The best thing about the Trump Dossier story is that it eliminates chants of "fake news!" every time someone here posts a Washington Post story that debunks conservative bullshit.
Thus, this take-down of the "uranium story" will not be met with "Fake news!" chants, as the Washington Post is now trusted by both liberals and conservatives in this board:

Washington Post (October 26, 2016): There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the deal personally, and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state. Theoretically, as Schweizer says, Clinton could have intervened. But even then, it ultimately would have been Obama’s decision whether to suspend or block the deal.
The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal

And then there's this new story also from the Washington Post, regarding a Uranium story in the linkbait publication "The Hill", where the article is called "flimsy": Opinion | The Hill’s flimsy Russia-uranium story lands with maximum effect
2016?

We know a lot more now.
right? Its funny cause the post above yours says other people are getting desperate :lol:
 
The best thing about the Trump Dossier story is that it eliminates chants of "fake news!" every time someone here posts a Washington Post story that debunks conservative bullshit.
Thus, this take-down of the "uranium story" will not be met with "Fake news!" chants, as the Washington Post is now trusted by both liberals and conservatives in this board:

Washington Post (October 26, 2016): There is no evidence Clinton herself got involved in the deal personally, and it is highly questionable that this deal even rose to the level of the secretary of state. Theoretically, as Schweizer says, Clinton could have intervened. But even then, it ultimately would have been Obama’s decision whether to suspend or block the deal.
The facts behind Trump’s repeated claim about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Russian uranium deal

And then there's this new story also from the Washington Post, regarding a Uranium story in the linkbait publication "The Hill", where the article is called "flimsy": Opinion | The Hill’s flimsy Russia-uranium story lands with maximum effect

What is apparent is that liberals have not learned a damn thing in the last 12 months.
 
Rule Number One for success in American politics is always leave yourself plenty of wiggle room when engaging in criminal actions and carefully insulate yourself from potential indictment by positioning subordinates between you and your actual crimes.
 
Rule Number One for success in American politics is always leave yourself plenty of wiggle room when engaging in criminal actions and carefully insulate yourself from potential indictment by positioning subordinates between you and your actual crimes.
Rule #1 is don’t assume you’ll win and start a string of flagrant abuses of the law thinking you can stop any investigation.
 
You mean the State Department doesn't have control over nuclear material?

Well if they don't, who does?

What do you mean the nuclear regulatory commission? Are you saying Republicans are liars?

HOW

DARE

YOU!

Next you'll be saying Obama didn't wire tap or he wasn't born in Kenya.
 
Except for that 145 million dollar gift she received.
She colluded up to her eye balls. :eusa_dance:
Now are you starting to understand why a secret server with aliases were necessary in the Obama era?
e.g.
Gun running to Mexico was a training session for gun running through Benghazi. 4 Americans died to keep that secret. The extent of machinating we are about to discover/uncover is going to be stunning.
 
Last edited:
Except for that 145 million dollar gift she received.
She colluded up to her eye balls. :eusa_dance:
Now are you starting to understand why a secret server with aliases were necessary in the Obama era?
e.g.
Gun running to Mexico was a training session for gun running through Benghazi. 4 Americans died to keep that secret. The extent of machinating we are about to discover/uncover is going to be stunning.

Except that no money went to the Clinton Foundation until 2 years after the uranium mine sale. Bribes are paid BEFORE favour are given, not after. Why pay for something you already have?
 
You aren't keeping up, lady. It's called "not disclosed". Now do you understand why hammers and bleach were necessary?

Get ready for a daily diet of discoveries as DNC'ers sing like birds. Right up to the next election when obstructionists will be removed. It's Comeying. :)
 
Except for that 145 million dollar gift she received.
She colluded up to her eye balls. :eusa_dance:
Now are you starting to understand why a secret server with aliases were necessary in the Obama era?
e.g.
Gun running to Mexico was a training session for gun running through Benghazi. 4 Americans died to keep that secret. The extent of machinating we are about to discover/uncover is going to be stunning.

Except that no money went to the Clinton Foundation until 2 years after the uranium mine sale. Bribes are paid BEFORE favour are given, not after. Why pay for something you already have?





 
Maybe that 145 million is just a discount on all the Russian Vodka the old lush has swilled down over a lifetime.
 

Forum List

Back
Top